Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by imt558 561d ago | news

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

Game Informer: Following EA’s announcement of the company’s new subscription program, Access, we were curious about it being tied only to Xbox One. We reached out to Sony for clarification, and it seems like PlayStation 4 owners shouldn’t hold their breath for the program. (EA Access, PS4, Sony)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Kid-Prodigy-KP  +   561d ago
Hell Yeah.
Ballsack  +   561d ago | Well said
Not really hell yeh

Coz playstation now at its current pricing is even less value to a gamer than EAs offering
Mikelarry  +   561d ago
not really, ps+ offers you discounts on multiple titles from different publishers big or small not just Sony first party titles. EA subscription only offers discounts on EA titles nothing more nothing less how is that better value to the gamer??

@ riverstars86: thanks for pointing that out, ok then you are right ballsack and apologies for reading your comment wrong
#1.1.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(84) | Disagree(74) | Report
PeaSFor  +   561d ago | Well said
EA rly Access, So they are just delaying games for a week so they can make people pay more..

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

thx but no thx even if DanzoSAMA think otherwise.
#1.1.2 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(112) | Disagree(40) | Report
riverstars86  +   561d ago
Mikelarry, Ballsack said PS Now, not PS+.
G20WLY  +   561d ago | Well said
When did EA ever offer good value to anybody? Everyone knows they're among the most money grabbing companies in existence.

EA Access is just another mechanism, ultimately designed to milk the gamer wallet, whether through direct transaction or hidden via the MS Money Hatting Program...
#1.1.4 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(74) | Disagree(18) | Report
Darkstares  +   561d ago | Well said
When is Sony going to admit that 200% rise in PS+ membership fees are largely due to having online multiplayer behind a paywall (which is now like XBox Gold)?

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

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

2. Game trials 5 days before it's released

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

PS+ also offers some good value but the members have no idea what those free games are (which are almost always older titles that nobody wants to buy any longer) and the discounts are only towards certain games. Isn't it the consumers who should decide, not Sony, on what we view value on?
#1.1.5 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(73) | Disagree(132) | Report
ZodTheRipper   561d ago | Trolling | show
torchic  +   561d ago | Well said
why are people comparing PSNow to EA Access? two completely different things.

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

Microsoft agreed to this plan as a shortcut method of bringing Xbox services on par with PS+
#1.1.7 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(55) | Disagree(29) | Report
FATAL1TY  +   561d ago | Well said
EA access = Trojan Horse

Achievement unlocked
donthate  +   561d ago | Well said
The only reason it isn't good value to "Playstation Gamers" is because it ain't good value to Sony!

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

I would ask Sony:

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

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

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

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

I personally just subscribed to EA Access and downloading BF4 and Peggle 2 while looking forward to more games being added into the mix.
truefan1  +   561d ago | Well said
So 1 game 4 hours for $5 is good value but 4 games 1 month $5 is bad value? Sony is clearly salty, in this damage control sratement.

I thought ps4 was for the gamers. I guess this should be revised for the gamers, excluding those who like EA.
stuna1  +   561d ago
With EA and Microsoft showing their hands with this program, this actually gives Sony the overall advantage! With their pricing scheme as well as what they have on offer.

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

To me I don't really believe there's a comparison to be made.
badz149   561d ago | Trolling | show
stuff  +   561d ago
I have a feeling that they will only offer games that have sold to a certain quota. EA still has to make a profit and are responsible to their shareholders. This, in a lot of ways,is an incentive for people to buy games digitally. But in the end it's a technique for getting people to give them money for there year old games instead of buying a used copy.

Madden 25 for Xbo is less than $20 now on ebay and will be far cheaper when Madden 26 releases.
Ocsta  +   561d ago
Dude. Sony know what EA are. THEY weren't interested.
Darkstares  +   561d ago | Well said

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


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

How can the same company endorse 4 hour rentals that cost upwards of $4 yet tell me that I don't want this for $5 a month or $30 a year. What a joke.
UltraNova  +   561d ago | Well said

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

Double standards much?

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

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


So I take it your are still SALTY since June's NPD results...
#1.1.16 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(46) | Disagree(29) | Report
nicksetzer1  +   561d ago
Yea, I agree with you guys ... choice totally sucks. I am glad Sony can make all my decisions for me. Thanks Sony.
ramiuk1  +   561d ago
well EA service isnt great,sounds better than it is.

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

what peopel need to remember is its EA and they a pure greed,so there is more bad to come from this and alot of direct profit.
jmac53  +   561d ago
@Salty You are still paying for Gold are you not? $60 + $30 does not equal $50.
SonyWarrior  +   561d ago
im glad sony doesnt let these turd companys clutter the PS store with there trash and clutter.
MorePowerOfGreen  +   561d ago
Clearly this was a painful and devastating thing for Sony to find out about. Fanboys are either envious or really worried. The fact Sony had to do PR on it tells you the gravity of this EA and MSFT partnership. Sony knows that this isn't some superficial deal but a co developed program by both companies .

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

This PR damage control will only be comforting to the most fanatical and delusional PS4 fans.
#1.1.21 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(25) | Disagree(47) | Report
Prime157  +   561d ago
Psnow is streaming, that's the difference. Psnow will be playable on bravia TV's. It also has plans to go to tablets. Ea access is downloading to one system.
cemelc  +   561d ago
I dont understand something, do xbox owners have to pay for live + EA acces? or does EA acces comes with the live price already included?

Cos youll otherwise be paying a 60$+30$ year to keep playing online right?
#1.1.23 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(8) | Report
Teddy-Duchamp  +   561d ago
Nice try! U wish, jelly fish.
Sevir  +   561d ago
Devastating? The normal XB trolls are out in full force, seriously, EA's line up is paltry and outside of the Mass Effect and Dead Space IP, the games they have are broken and unfinished experiences rushed to compete with another stale IP that's stifling innovation in the gaming industry.

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

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

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

It's great to have options, but this is clearly a price gouge. And the program brings no value to Xbox fans either.
TheGreatAndPowerful  +   561d ago
This could be the reason why Sony said no to this service.

EA reserves the right to change and update the EA Access Services, and the EA Content offered through the EA Access Services without any liability to you. In particular, Vault Titles are subject to change and may be removed, and the online services for certain Vault Titles may be discontinued.
BallsEye  +   561d ago


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

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

Whoever say it has no value need to go back and see how sony charges for ps now. How can you defend this and bash ea access?
#1.1.27 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(12) | Report
incredibleMULK  +   561d ago
Agreed. Insecure Sony. Not one positive comment all generation. Nothing but negative shit all generation toward Xbox/Microsoft even when they showed professionalism and spoke high of the ps4.

Now they're talking shit to ea. Someone needs some humble quick we feel what number 3 feels like....cough cough ps3.
MSBAUSTX  +   561d ago

I think EA is doing this because they don't feel they are getting enough money from what PS+ is offering and they want in on the money train that Sony has stumbled across with PS+.
TheGreatAndPowerful  +   561d ago

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

MS marketing director: "We are going to kill Sony at E3!"
However, the key for me was the end of a revealing interview with Craig Davidson, Director of Global Marketing Microsoft. According to him, "Xbox One will surprise the world during E3." Ending with a resounding "We will kill Sony at E3".
HaveAsandwich  +   561d ago
its ONLY EA games. c'mon.
DragonKnight  +   561d ago
Wow. People are really trying to compare EA Access, which is a subscription service that tries to justify (apparently successfully based on the ignorant comments here) the Early Access model that PC gaming already has and gets blasted for; to PSNow which is a streaming service and thus has an entirely different infrastructure, and is indeed completely different to EA Access?

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

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

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

And when people say that one company is as bad as another, yet support the other company they just said was bad with such fervor, guess what that is?
4Sh0w  +   561d ago | Well said
lol, Who said Xbox gamers love EA now? No, Xbox gamers who want to play a bunch of EA games for a fraction of the price, get early access and 10% off new games just appreciate a good deal.

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

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

Call a spade a spade, sonys done a great job so far this gen but this statement is self-serving BS. Yesterday this **OPTION wasn't available, if it has no value let the end user decide.
#1.1.33 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(6) | Report
Visiblemarc  +   561d ago
Ps+ is an awesome value.

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

EA is, generally speaking, a greedy bully. I wish they didn't own so many IP's I enjoy.
bmf7364  +   561d ago
Sony should really consider a $10/mo sub-fee to PS Now for unlimited access to the titles.
ABizzel1  +   561d ago
Well that makes it even more interesting then, since it seems like EA did come to Sony as well, who denied it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But at the same time, more options are almost always best (too many options can become a problem), and this is a case where Sony should have went ahead and just did it IMO.
#1.1.36 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report
loulou   561d ago | Trolling | show
ziggurcat  +   561d ago

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

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


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

you're limited only to EA titles...
#1.1.38 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(8) | Report
diehardmetallicafan  +   561d ago
wow, darkstares gets 'well said' and zodtheripper gets 'trolling'? wooow.
Alot of people claiming that one service is better than the other, why not pay for both? Isn't that what all the neutral fence sitters always say when it comes to buying a console?
RosweeSon  +   561d ago
My mates just text me to say pretty much the same thing playstation now prices are not even final... It's a beta!!! Microsoft's marketplace is overpriced but hey that's just the way it is, it's launched and overpriced deal with it. They could change it like they could do this and that but it's Microsoft they won't unless there's an outrage like when both consoles revealed.
Eddie20101  +   561d ago
Xbox One get shiny new turd, Sony doesn't want it.
Xbox One fanboys praise the Shiny new turd because it is something Playstation 4 will not have.

EA, previously despised by Xbox and Playstation gamer's for crapy business practices is suddenly the hero of Xbox fanboys, not surprising.
#1.1.41 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(8) | Report
ShinMaster  +   561d ago
A small number of games from EA is not a good value.
Especially when they're delaying the games on purpose to make people pay for "EA Access".
DanzoSAMA  +   561d ago
"EA Access Doesn't 'Represent Good Value To The PlayStation Gamer"

Killz4Twinkies  +   561d ago
As PS4 owner i wish sony would have given the consumer the choice to pick this up or not. However most ppl havent read the fine print...

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

Seems like everyone thinks they will have this huge library of EA games to play when in reality it will probably be 2-3 old games at a time (one previous year sport title / one old indie game / Franchise Game #1 (when the 4th is on the way for xmas)
mixolydian_id  +   561d ago
30$ for access to an ever changing pool of EA games for a year?

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

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

Not too shabby to be fair.

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

Sounds like there'll always be games available.
mochachino  +   561d ago
Agreed, Sony should let me decide what I think a good value is. I don't want them dictating what services I can or can't purchase.

I love my PS4 but shame shame Sony. I hope this trend doesn't continue.
objdadon  +   561d ago
I have all three systems and I have no interest in ea subscription or playstation now! I buy my games, own my games, when I'm done I sell my games! I pay for xbox live and psn+. My wii u is free, the way it should be!
redwin  +   561d ago
Got my code. I'm downloading ... I'm gaming. Maybe I'll get early bata for bf5. ...take my $30 now please.
turdburgler1080  +   561d ago
I commented on how this was going to go down yesterday and I was right. Sony at the height of their hubris took jabs at EA during E3 and now EA took a jab back. I said Sony would make some PR comment trying to downplay their screw up and they just did. EA doesn't hurt for money so they don't have to give anything to Sony despite their reputation. Sony on the other hand needs EA so they can get money from EA's game sales. You don't bite the hand that feeds.
cee773  +   561d ago
It do not represent A good value when xbone has more EA games than ps4 and yet we still pay the same price hell no and I dont like the precedent EA is starting next thing you know every pub will want 30$ A year.
Jonny5isalive  +   561d ago
yea it is not a good value to ps gamers because if they paid for it, then it wouldnt work on their PS consoles.
JasonKCK  +   561d ago
Sony thinks $2.99 for 4 hrs is just so much better.

N4Gaf never changes.
lelo  +   561d ago
EA Access doesn't represent good value, but PS Now does?
Unless PS Now is offered free with PS+ (witch I highly doubt), it's a no go for me. Paying a high price to play last gen games, no thanks.

As for EA Access, I'm sceptical...
#1.3 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(45) | Disagree(45) | Report | Reply
Menkyo  +   561d ago
The price model is set up by the publishers of the games on Psnow. Plus its a beta.
chrisarsenalsavart  +   561d ago
Psnow is a streaming service.
Nothing to do with ea access or ps+ for that matter.
madpuppy  +   561d ago
I guess if they were the same thing, the first part of your comment would mean something.

as for the second have seen the final pricing list for playstation now? I love it when no actual pricing has been revealed but, everyone "knows" what its going to be in lieu of an "actual" finalized pricing list.
Utalkin2me  +   561d ago

First EA access is more like PS+ and not PS Now. And plus blows EA access out of the water in value. And i didn't know PS Now prices was set in stone yet anyways.
dcbronco  +   561d ago

I believe EA Access is also a beta so maybe the price will go down.
Pogmathoin  +   561d ago
Its $30 a year, for this, its great value.
Keltech  +   561d ago
You can also add the $50-60 that customers have to pay for XBL. Let's not ignore that.
Sheikh Yerbouti  +   561d ago
Whatever happened to Games for Gold? Will Activision have their own service too if they wanted? This is just a money grab.
Ginesis  +   561d ago
Add in the price to rent games on PS Now and the Plus subscription. Let's not ignore that.
XStation  +   561d ago

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

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

3.) PS+ comes with a cost also, so it would be the same thing if it was on the PS4.
#1.4.4 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(6) | Report
frostypants  +   561d ago
$30 a year, with no guarantee whatsoever that a given game will be available.
thekhurg  +   561d ago
Until you factor in this service forces digital purchases meaning you can never sell or trade the game to get more value back once you're done.
JorboTron  +   561d ago
I have never paid more than $45 for a year of XBL. It's called being a savvy consumer.
OT: EA Access is clearly not for everyone. But I wouldnt mind throwing down $5 once in awhile to play some older EA annual releases that I would never pay a full $60 for. To each his own. It's at least a good option to have. and PS+ > EA access clearly. but its nice to see more competition that will improve future offerings
jnemesh  +   561d ago
$30/year + DLC costs. For games that are in a bargain bin at your local pawn shop.

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

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

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

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

Thanks Sony (honestly!) for keeping a CRAP service off of your console!
OmegaShen  +   561d ago
Doesn't matter if PS+ or PS Now, both are far better and both offer more working games.

Its funny how people keep using a beta as a finally product.
mrpsychoticstalker  +   561d ago
I'm not a big fan of the consoles war . But this is a big win for Microsoft. Whoever doesn't think the same is in plain denial. It's a great deal, for a cheap price.
OmegaShen  +   561d ago
Need to try harder to not sound like a troll buddy, its EA. Theres no real win with them, so far the have screw up on alot of things that do online.

They weren't on the list for worst company for nothing.
ThePope  +   561d ago
"Its funny how people keep using a beta as a finally product."

The same can be said to you. EA Access is a beta as well so how do you know which is a better value. Maybe you should shut your mouth.
OmegaShen  +   561d ago
If you seen how there games been online,an them being the worst company. Beta or not, its EA.
bluzone  +   561d ago
Is this an example of MS buying its way out of a deficit in offerings? Much like it's buying its way into "owning Titan Fall" as an exclusive.

@mrpsychoticstalker "I'm not a big fan of the consoles war" Now that I've that watched your comments for a while this seems like a strange statement from you. troll much?
Jonny5isalive  +   561d ago
yea 30$ to rent FF 13-2 for 90 days. you can probably buy it forever for 10 on sale like it was last year. You can say these are just test prices, but who ever at sony thought those were good test prices was a moron and needs to be fired.

It reminds me of the vita when it came out and they charged 25$ for a ridge racer demo that oyu could buy more DLC for, or 40$ for dungeon hunter alliance that was old and only 10-15$ on PS3. Seems to me like alot of sonys pricing is way to high for some old shit. THey have good sales now but thats the only time Id buy stuff from the PS store. If its not on sale or BRAND NEW then its a ripoff.
HaydenJameSmith  +   561d ago
I don't care about EA Access regardless of Xbox One exclusivity but these statements are coming from the Guys who thinks its good value to gamers to have to pay extra money for an extra difficulty mode in Killzone Shadow Fall and The Last of Us...

C'mon this is just BS article, how is EA Access any different from PS+ either ? PS+ forces you to pay for discounts for certain exclusive games and pay to play your free games that you get every month... this is just specifically for EA Games and also includes 5 day early access so...
Sheikh Yerbouti  +   561d ago
That's the point Hayden. If we already have PS+, how is this any more valuable. Why can't EA offerings be on PS+? Because it is just an EA moneygrab. You already have Games for Gold.
HaydenJameSmith  +   561d ago
@Sheikh Yerbouti

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

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

for the record I didnt disagree with you and I have been too because people prefer to just stealth disagree with ya without giving any logical reason....
#1.6.2 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(8) | Report
Sheikh Yerbouti   561d ago | Not a reply | show
MotherLight  +   561d ago
PS+ forces you? No, unless you're a moron who can't think for himself there isn't anything in this world that can force you to do anything if you don't want to.

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

No one is forcing you to.

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

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

What is stupid is anyone trying to downplay a service that actually has value when you people never said shit about Xbox Live when all it offered was using your internet and nothing more.
#1.6.4 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(6) | Report
HaydenJameSmith  +   561d ago

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

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

for above

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

And I dont see how its sad that I Dont own a PS3 or Vita as well as a PS4. I didn't have enough money to have both an 360 and PS3 when I was younger so I just got the 360, and the Vita never appealed to me... So it would have been no value to me having those extra consoles. I have gotten to the stage where i can own both the X1 and PS4 and pay for both the servies but I just dont see why you people have a problem with an additional service that doesn't force you to pay for it either that further gives users more games to play and discounts if the user so wishes to pay for, Sony shouldnt be limiting there audience and stating that it is no value to them when they can decide for themselves.
#1.6.5 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(2) | Report
MotherLight  +   561d ago
Of course you don't have to use either subscriptions but I think Sony's point is this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean I understand where you're coming from, I don't like needing a subscription for anything honestly myself but I have PS+ because I have had it long before it was ever needed for online multiplayer, I know that aspect sucks and I am not saying it doesn't but because of that I knew regardless I planned on keeping PS+ anyway before I ever heard of Sony planning on doing that for the PS4.
Kavorklestein   561d ago | Bad language | show | Replies(6)
jcnba28  +   561d ago
Sony are becoming arrogant again. Last time I checked PS Plus wasn't optional to play online. Also how is $4.99 a month to play a bunch of games not better than paying $4.99 just to play one game on PS Now for a few hours?
Volkama  +   561d ago
Quite ridiculous and petty response. It is clearly good value, even with only these initial 4 games available.

What I do find intersting is that EA are forging this path hand-in-hand with Microsoft, with no mention of bringing a similar deal to their own Origin platform. That suggests Microsoft are driving this, with EA the willing partner.
#1.8.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(14) | Report
jkendrick   561d ago | Trolling | show
Volkama  +   561d ago
jkendrick if they offered the service and you did not see it as good value you would just not subscribe. Do you think other gamers are incapable of making that assessment?

Personally I already own FIFA14 and Battlefield 4, and I have no interest in Madden or Peggle. The access pass doesn't represent great value to me at this time. But I certainly think I'll be a subscriber sooner rather than later, and I would not be thankful if Microsoft turned around and said "No we don't want to offer XBox gamers something like that".
#1.8.3 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(4) | Report
Utalkin2me  +   561d ago
Please give me a link where Sony has officially stated that pricing for PS Now is going to be 4.99 to stream a game for a few hours.
kenshiro100  +   561d ago
Where's the arrogance?

trouble_bubble  +   561d ago
PSNow isn't out yet geniuses. It's a closed beta. Proof? I'm not in it. Stop quoting old test prices on unrelated services or I'll just say EA should be free like Crackle.

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

I don't buy full retail games digitally anyways as there's no resale value and I'm limited on how many systems I can play it on, so the 10% discount is a joke. Simply not interested in the EA roster other than mass effect. If brokenfield's online is borked at launch every year, why would I wanna pay extra for 5 day early access to a loading screen? It's Overpriced already. BF3 and DeadSpace3 were already free on Plus.
#1.8.6 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(7) | Report
ZeroX9876  +   561d ago
the deal seems nice for X1 owners, but I'm wondering if a just released title (example would be Fifa 15) will be available on launch on this service?
Or is it just previous released titles?
Volkama  +   561d ago
The blurb on the service says you get a 10% discount on games like Fifa 15 and Dragon Age, so it is safe to say that new games are not included.

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

This is all breaking new ground, we'll just have to wait and see how it shapes up. It could potentially have a huge impact.
Hardcore_gamerxbox  +   561d ago
Hell no Sony sayin this becaue it's only on Xbox one typical Sony
Magicite  +   561d ago
EA has done nothing good in past few years. They screwed major franchises like dead space, dragon age, battlefield, simcity and more. They lost any trust.
Anon1974  +   561d ago
I don't get this. If Microsoft were serious about beefing up XBL (which is already more expensive) to compete with the PSN+ offering for less money they would have cut a deal to include this in their XBL service and not just add it as another cash grab on top of an already paid service.

Seriously, if Microsoft was making this available at no extra cost to XBL subscribers to help boost their "Games with gold" program, I'd say this was excellent value for gamers. But it isn't. To get close to the type of service Sony has been offering for years with PSN+, Microsoft just made it an extra $30. How is this value for anyone? The only one that benefits is EA as they rake in the money from the naive.
Team_Litt  +   561d ago
"Microsoft just made it an extra $30. How is this value for anyone?"
You don't NEED Gold for EA Access so how is it extra? And Microsoft did not just do anything, this is EA's subscription.

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

You see no value in $5 a month for access to 4 AAA games? Lol, sure buddy. Let me guess, you hate PS+ and PSNow as well right? Of course not, Lord Sony is perfect.
#1.12.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(3) | Report
Anon1974  +   560d ago
Wow. Thanks for that snarky response. Glad to see you seriously considered the points I raised.

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

And actually, on the topic of PS Now, yes..yes I do hate the pricing of it currently and won't be using the service when it comes out.
gapecanpie  +   561d ago
If sony isn't getting any money from it, then it's a no go for them, that is the approach Sony will be taking this gen as they need all the money they can get just to stay afloat. Any one defending this idiotic decision is a delusional fanyboy that will gladly bend over for Sony and take one straight up the ***

This is the reason why the ps4 don't have basic mp3 playback because they want you to subscribe to that crappy music unlimited service then implant something that would probably only take them 2 days to make and add to the ps4.... Just as easily as they made that god awful music unlimited app that been on the ps4 from day one they could have as easliy had mp3 playback from day one!
#1.13 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
jkendrick   561d ago | Trolling | show
Azzanation  +   561d ago
Its a bad mistake to shut EA down as we learnt after Nintendo turning down there deals. EA might now offer better deals to MS and even exclusives since there willing to accept EA Access. I think MS just got a lot stronger.
Ihatetrolls76  +   561d ago
I'd say if ever ms and ea went partners and ea stopped making games for ps that would definitely hurt sony in a bad way. I'd hate to see something like that happen used ps4s would be crowding local game stores definitely in America where ea sports games sell big time and all the diehard battlefield players
t-hall785  +   561d ago
Lol I thought Sony was for the gamer. This would just be another option for the gamer to have. I don't know about you guys but 30.00 bucks a year for "used" games (follow me now). Is not a bad deal.

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

Too bad for Sony. They're getting arrogant again...smh.
PRock10  +   561d ago
Why hell yeah? Regardless of whether it's a good deal or not, that's my decision as the consumer to make, not Sony's decision to make for me. I think people are losing sight of that fact, your right as the consumer was taken from you.
TheTwelve  +   561d ago
Hell yes to real competition taking place now...I like how Sony will attempt to do better than this EA/Microsoft bedding.
baodeus  +   561d ago

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

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

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

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

Advantage for Consumers:
- You can pick and chose to pay for the services/contents that you want, rather than keep paying hoping to see that you might see something that you like
- convenient, convenient, convenient = access to any content, anywhere and you can bring it anywhere you want.
- Disadvantage, it could be come costly if you are greedy and want every contents out there.
baodeus  +   561d ago
Now how all of this will be problematic for Sony:

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

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

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

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

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

and pretty funny that for such a group of gamers who take pride in making their own decisions or can think for themselves, now agree with Sony making decision for them or what best for PS4 gamers?
FanboyKilla  +   561d ago
Lol still going at it today too. Obviously someones upset. And no class sony trying to hate. Lmfao you are sounding like a looser sony. Show some class. Im almost ashamed i bought a ps4. They all ways talking slick. You are the little guy. A flea on the big dogs balls. Shut up and be happy you are still here.

Lmfao hey sony, where is the value for me when you sell me tlou twice? Buying the same game twice isnt that good of a value either. Lol you got no problem with that. Sit yo ass down and watch how we do this.
BoriboyShoGUN  +   561d ago
You save 10% on a digital copy you can no longer trade in!!!!! If the library us extensive it might be cool, but those old sports games are dirt cheap after a couple years anyways.
ion666  +   561d ago
Well playstation already gives free awesome games already. Ea wants to nickle and dime everybody. Why not give a ea game to playstion plus members.Just goes to show you how ea are money hungry business men.So yeah it was not a value because sony didnt want us to have 2 subscriptions for games that should be free with plus members.
lawgone  +   561d ago
@Kid Prodigy KP...Did you seriously just "hell yeah" Sony not giving you the option to use EA Access? Are you that blinded by your loyalty to one console over the other?
greenlantern2814  +   561d ago
IMO that decision should be left to the consumer not sony. I have to disagree with them on this decision. If you want it you should be able to make that choice
GamerRetro  +   561d ago
Hell yeah to what Sony screwing us once again , Sony thinks for itself and not the Gamers
DonFreezer  +   561d ago
Well I can't remember the last time I have commented on N4G but I can see that the moto goes strong. We are talking about the biggest publisher of all times.The one that casuals sctream to their name. The one that releases the most profitable games except COD in consoles.And they don't represent great value to ps customers.Why do I have a feeling that if this was ps exclusive everyone would type the nails in the coffin for the Xbox One and scream victory for Sony?Why is it that you feel so threatened by just a service that you have to praise Sony for giving competitor;s services a bad name. Well in modern history companies that used bludder and lies were left in the dust. If Sony continues the same game of lies and fud then by Holiday when Master Chief comes back , Sunset Overdrive and Ori release and all those triple A games get gameplay footage I don't think they'll talk that much.
Azzanation  +   561d ago
Sony just shot themselves in the foot. EA would have read that statement and you can bet your chickens they will do things similar to what they did with Nintendo. I don't like EA however they house amazing titles and franchises.
Aldous_Snow   561d ago | Off topic | show | Replies(3)
jackanderson1985  +   561d ago
their response makes no sense at all unless they plan on offering PS Now as a freebie add on to PS+
Kayant  +   561d ago
ikr.... The service is optional. The consumer will choose if it's represents value or not.
BitbyDeath  +   561d ago
EA would have cut their titles from PS+ if they had their own service running alongside.

This way Sony gets EA titles and a magnitude of others still within PS+ where as Xbox owners will need to pay for both if they want EA games.
jackanderson1985  +   561d ago
not necessarily, EA can just opt not to allow Sony put their titles on PS+

Also i think EA clarified yesterday you don't need the gold if you only intend to play the games as Single Player games so you could just pay the 5 dollars for the month or 30 dollars for the year and be done with it
#3.2.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(4) | Report
BitbyDeath  +   561d ago
Ea would cut their games going to other services to make their own look better. Sony gives them no choice but to only use PS+ or they miss out on extra revenue.

Think about it.
jackanderson1985  +   561d ago
I somehow doubt Sony forces publishers onto PS+ seeing as they have to pay the publishers to get their games on it... if it was just the case of Sony demanding it surely they'd have brand new AAA games on it as it'd drive up the PS+ subs and the console sales
user7402931  +   561d ago

ps plus is simply a far better value
Mikelarry  +   561d ago
"We don’t think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer"

exactly what i was thinking when they made this announcment yesterday and some fans were praising EA. i already pay for both xbox live and ps+ what sense does it make to get another subscription with EA for discounts on games but again if people are willing to pay for that more power to them, i for one will only be paying for live and ps+ and if i want any more savings on games shop aggressively around i could do without more subscriptions services
#4 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(33) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
mhunterjr  +   561d ago
But somehow, their PSNow prices are good for gamers?
Mikelarry  +   561d ago
exactly what i meant with the last part of my comment. ps+ and xbox live are the only services i am willing to pay for. psnow and this new ea subscription services really does not make any sense to me or offer me any value i can think of.

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

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

Edit 2: @ harry

i hope they don't but come on Sony knew those prices were rip off and if people accepted those prices that is what they would charge
#4.1.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(2) | Report
HarryMasonHerpderp  +   561d ago
I was under the impession that Sony hadn't set prices for PSNow since its in beta? there were just those place holders, which i agree they were a rip off. I cant see them sticking to those prices though when its officially released.
#4.1.2 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(19) | Disagree(2) | Report
OrangePowerz  +   561d ago
As someone who buys retro games, PS1 and PS2 are actually a lot more expensive to buy compared to last years EA sports games. I bought some old Fifa games recently and they cost all more than what I would need to pay for Fifa 14.
mhunterjr  +   561d ago

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

Sony has no business making this comment. It's BS for them to pretend they are against the ea access because it's bad for consumers. Not to mention that it's pretty clear that EA's service is already widely regarded as a good deal for fans of EA games.
#4.1.4 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(11) | Report
TheFanboySlayer  +   561d ago

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

The only thing they can do is change the prices cause if not they will fail miserably.
Chevalier  +   561d ago
Please show factual proof of bad PSNow prices. They are in beta so your opinion is not proof. There's not enough info to compare even.
mhunterjr  +   561d ago
Both of these services are in beta... It's ok for Sony to bash this beta, but not ok to bash sony's

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

How much proof do you need?
Chevalier  +   561d ago
You seem to think Sony isn't getting criticized?! Lol. Just look at these links. And your proof is beta pricing in testing phases and aren't representative of final prices. They're trying to figure out the pricing.

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

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

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

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

Also widely regarded?! By a handful of people like you on a forum speaking for everyone? That's just rich. Sorry did I miss a survey where 90% of the thousands of people came back with a positive result with statistical data with 95% accuracy?! Otherwise this 'wide regard' is from a very skewed group of individuals of a small and very vocal Xbone fanbase.
mhunterjr  +   561d ago

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

As far as the value of EA's service, if you typically buy a lot of EA content each year, the service will pay for itself. So it may not be good for you, but for fans of EA titles, it's unarguably a good deal, as it will save them money. Paying for it on top of live isn't a bad thing if it means your spending LESS on software overall...
#4.1.9 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
TheFanboySlayer  +   560d ago
I don't think Sony was bashing EA Access at all they just said their reason for not allowing their service on the system was that they thought it was a bad no way were they saying "This service is sucks".

Its like ordering food. someone recommends you buy some pasta or something but you think that won't be enough to fill you up didn't say the pasta or whatever sucks lmao
Chevalier  +   560d ago
The 'truth' as we know it is from a skewed point of view with bias. No one yet knows the full details enough to justify either point. Basing an argument on very limited info of the inside dealings and very far reaching implications during a beta is misinformed based on lack of information and idiotic. Your reaching to make your conclusion based on a beta.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again stop assuming things and reaching based on limited information, for all we know a year from now PS Now launches and it turns out to be a netflix of games and EA decided to exclude themselves and it turns out terrible. Or EA started something worse and no gaming netflix occurs because all the studios have their own subscriptions because of EA's setting a precedent.
#4.1.11 (Edited 560d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
mhunterjr  +   560d ago

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

And your right PSNow could end up being the netflix of gaming, but right now it's in Beta. And the beta isn't a very good deal for gamers. Likewise, EAs offering is in beta, and it currently represents a good deal to EA fans ok xbox one. I'm not assuming things based on limited information, any more than Sony did when then passed on EA.
#4.1.12 (Edited 560d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Chevalier  +   560d ago
Sony doesn't think it's a good deal and yes we get they have their own similar service, but, I don't think it's a great deal. Hypocritical or not the truth may be bad for consumers in the end. Hypocrisy doesn't make it any less true.

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

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

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

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

This was quite well put by the blog:
#4.1.13 (Edited 560d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
mhunterjr  +   560d ago

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

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

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

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

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

"Let's assume each publisher has their own subscription" why should we assume that? A subscription model is just one possibility. Maybe Ubisoft store would give out a free game based one achievements you unlock in their games, maybe Activisions store would give you free DLC passes when you buy a game on launch day, maybe 2k's store will give you points towards a new game everytime you buy one. Maybe Amazon could get a store front, and sell games from all of these publishers at a discount to Prime account holders. Their is an infinite number of ways publishers could try to fight for our attention. And as a customer you could pick and choose between all of them, or you could get your games the way you've been doing it. you are too blinded by the worst case scenario to see the potential.
#4.1.14 (Edited 560d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Chevalier  +   560d ago
"A subscription model is just one possibility. Maybe Ubisoft store would give out a free game based one achievements you unlock in their games, maybe Activisions store would give you free DLC passes when you buy a game on launch day, maybe 2k's store will give you points towards a new game everytime you buy one"

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

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

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

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

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

You open your argument with an assumption

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

then say to me:

"why should we assume that?"

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

Microsoft won't just 'allow' them to do whatever, it's THEIR network, EA is paying them for that use. Guess who the costs for paying Microsoft get passed onto?! The consumer ends up paying that cost.
#4.1.15 (Edited 560d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
NYC_Gamer  +   561d ago
What about giving people the option to decide for themselves?
BitbyDeath  +   561d ago
Wouldn't be an option, read my post above.
abc1233  +   561d ago
I really hope people aren't buying into this BS of them not offering it because they have the consumer in mind. If EA offers this service and it's successful, other companies will follow along, which won't be great for Sony's own subscription services.
Spotie  +   561d ago
And you think that'll be good for us consumers? If every publisher has a $30 plan? Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Capcom, all charging for their own games. How does that sound better than getting games from all of them for one fee?
abc1233  +   561d ago
Where did I say that this becoming the standard is good for consumers? I'm saying that Sony's primary motivation in this is their own subscription service. What is good for consumers is having options, which Sony is denying. If consumers feel that this is good value then it'll succeed, if not then it'll crash and burn, as it should be.
MrBeatdown  +   561d ago
"which won't be great for Sony's own subscription services."

Services which we will be paying for anyway.

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

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

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

I'm glad at least Sony passed on it. DLC, season passes, online passes... once publishers see an idea succeed, they've got to milk it for every penny they can.
#5.2.3 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report
maniacmayhem  +   561d ago
I'm with Mr. Beatdown on this. If Sony and EA's service proves to be successful we can expect a lot more big dev/publishers following in their footsteps.

I already mentioned in the past that PSNow was the foundation towards an all digital future. I am sure that it will be happening sooner than later.
Corpser  +   561d ago
Exactly, don't see the value? Don't subscribe! That 10% off all EA digital games/DLCs alone is worth $30 a year to me, not worth it to you? It's optional!
BattleTorn  +   561d ago
$30 really isn't much value to justify really.

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

Otherwise if I start buying EA titles Digital. (Not a sport game fan at all)
PRock10  +   561d ago
BattleTorn. Might not be value to you but it is to some people. Why can't that be their decision and not yours and it shouldn't be Sony's.
MrBeatdown  +   561d ago

There is no real value in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a reason EA is doing this. They can make more money off Access than Plus or GWG. But it doesn't necessarily benefit us. Just like the online pass, which started out as Project $10... bonus content for new buyers. "Choice". It ultimately didn't benefit us. It was just an inconvenience for us, having to put in a code to access standard features in our new games. It benefited them.
#5.3.3 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Athonline  +   561d ago
Choice = less potential revenue. Sony, Microsoft, etc are all companies.

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

The real question is: Will it be a good value a year after? Will they add more games to the vault? I wouldn't mind waiting 8-12 months for a game to "enter the vault collection" and get it within the subscription.
#5.4 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
trouble_bubble  +   561d ago
EA has been in bed with MS for a while. From Mass Effect1 to Titanfall1. They probably had no aim of wanting/needing this on PS in the first place. It's like blaming Sony for MIcrosoft's COD contract with Activision, or the EA online pass and Origin experiment. It's just publishers looking out for themselves
#5.5 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Ihatetrolls76  +   561d ago
They went to sony and offered the service sony turned it down seems like they wanted it on ps and xbox. Sony is as greedy as any other company there not the good guys looking out for you they will bend you over and take it from you while all the time you will be thanking them and I'm not as blind to think for one second ms doesn't do the same thing
#5.5.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report
aquamala  +   561d ago
I would have subscribed just for the 10% off EA stuff. give me the option Sony
imt558  +   561d ago
I smell good PS+ free games lineup and sales for August. :) That will be good Sony's response.

Anyway, quote from article :

“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect,” a Sony representative told us via email. “PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price..."

200% up! WOW!
#6 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(23) | Report | Reply
riverstars86  +   561d ago
PS+ is required for online multiplayer. This isn't surprising in the least.
G20WLY  +   561d ago
PS4's FTP games have free online multiplayer.
#6.1.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(7) | Report
joeorc  +   561d ago
Why do people keep saying PS+ is required for online multiplayer? Because on the PS4 there is free 2 play online multi-player gaming. DCUniverse ,Soon to be added Planetside2 .etc so no you can still play online multiplayer gaming without the requirement of PS+
skulz7  +   561d ago
Thank you Sony :) This Access thing is bullshit
kneon  +   561d ago
If it's successful then this could really get stupid, we'll end up with subscription services from ubisoft, Activision etc.

I can live with a platform specific subscription, but developer specific subscriptions is going too far.
Mikelarry  +   561d ago
Activision is the one that scares me the most, you cant get access to this map pack because although you have paid $60 for the game $30 for season pass you have not subscribed to activision early access
mcstorm  +   561d ago
Yeah I posted the same thing yesterday but I think this is the way gaming could go and I think we are now seeing the push for digital service only on console. I do find it funny that MS kind of did this with the xbox one at the beginning and everyone kicked off but now everyone is looking to bring in their own service.

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

I have not got a clue how this will turn out in the end but it will be interesting to see what happens.
jkendrick  +   561d ago
^Excellent point sir.

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

Soon it will be the only way to play games is through subscriptions.
#7.1.3 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report
Slevon  +   561d ago
Thank you sony for telling what to like/do :) I couldnt have made the decision to not subscribe on my own
XiSasukeUchiha   561d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(3)
MysticStrummer  +   561d ago
It represents good value for people who think it's a good value.

Deep, I know. ; )

On a related note, it's funny how gamers keep voting EA "worst company" yet still make them the #1 next gen publisher by buying their products. Talk about mixed messages, but one message makes EA money so why would they try to do anything about the other? EA Access should go over well with fans of their games, but I wonder if this will finally get EA out of "worst company" status.
Baka-akaB  +   561d ago
It can just mean that the people against them and voting for the title , are vastly outnumbered by the people that need their games
MysticStrummer  +   561d ago
True, it just seems odd but you're right. Two extremes that aren't necessarily related at all.
#8.1.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Athonline  +   561d ago
I think Activision Blizzard is the biggest publisher nowadays.

What I don't get is that people vote EA "worst company" over banks, oil companies, law firms, patent trolls, etc etc... and people seems to forget that micro-transactions, season passes and DLCs were not EA's original ideas. Ubisoft and their million pre-order bonuses/editions is as bad, if not worse than EA in my eyes.
MysticStrummer  +   561d ago

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

I wholeheartedly agree that EA is nowhere near the worst company, and that much of what they do is done by other publishers.
#8.2.1 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Athonline  +   561d ago

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

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

For me Ubisoft and Zenimax-Bethesda are the worst publishers.
The first for all the extra DLCs, pre-order bonuses, various editions and yearly franchises. The second for being the company that brought us in-disc and small, overpriced DLCs and for all the lawsuits Zenimax is doing -which is understandable for a company run by an ex-lawyer.
CBaoth  +   561d ago
You know what, it was a stroke of genius for EA regardless if the program fails or not. In the matter of 30 seconds, after the online community digested this PR release, roughly a quarter of us instantly liked EA again!

I find the more revealing and provocative question underlining this announcement is the unofficial acknowledgement of Origin as a massive commercial failure. It's obvious the grand ambition of EA was to capture a significant portion of the PC market away from Steam using their own properties as a vehicle to drive sales. Why choose a competitor in the form of MS when you already have a digital distribution client of your own?
#8.3 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
MysticStrummer  +   561d ago
"You know what, it was a stroke of genius for EA regardless if the program fails or not. In the matter of 30 seconds, after the online community digested this PR release, roughly a quarter of us instantly liked EA again!"

Yeah image improvement was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title. I imagine EA did very well with this deal, because MS wants to do anything they can to possibly boost sales.
AfterThought   561d ago | Off topic | show | Replies(1)
FBC   561d ago | Spam
mananimal  +   561d ago
DRM strikes again!!!!
xxx_Solid_Snake_xxx  +   561d ago
oh really ?? -_-
TheBoy   561d ago | Trolling | show | Replies(1)
Perjoss  +   561d ago
One thing worries me about this new EA thing, its totally fine if there exists something like this as an option, but what if companies decided to make a subscription model the only way to play their games, it would mean you never actually own any games. It will be sad times for gamers that love to build a collection.
andibandit  +   561d ago
Perhaps, but I dont think it's a really big problem.
I guess that if someone has to own a game in order to enjoy it while playing it, I suppose it makes sense.

Would I have had less fun in Battlefield 4, if i had paid a monthly fee to play it....problably not.
Perjoss  +   561d ago
I guess we are from different generations, I grew up playing systems like the atari 2600, the first playstation, super nintendo, sega consoles, I pretty much bought them all. And they all still work perfectly, I can grab any of the games that I bought all those years ago and play them today. It's nice to have something to show for the money you have spent.
iistuii  +   561d ago
We need physical copies. I buy loads of games per year & most of them, especially SP only games I play, complete & sell on, giving me money to buy the next title. EA are just doing the old sports pass like before, but now making it sweeter by throwing in their back catalogue. For people like me I've played all their games, so if they have MP I still have them or if not I've finished & sold them, so for me it would be paying $30 to play Fifa for 5 days before release, no thanks.
Gh05t  +   561d ago
We need physical copies like we needed a/8-track, tape, vinyl, CD, mini disk, laser disk, dvd and blu-ray.

Its just a progression of technology.

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

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

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

I understand people want to keep physical copies but this is the way things are progressing.
DeadlyFire  +   561d ago
Subscription models for publishers are now cooking in the minds of Activision, 2K, Ubisoft, and so on. EA is giving them bad ideas and at least one of them likely will follow it up.

Fast forward 10 years then the subscription services say no downloads required. Just subscribe and play on the Cloud. They are hoping they can make 100% profit in the future without you ever touching a game disc.
Imalwaysright  +   561d ago
If you think that publishers are greedy now that we're still able to have control over our games, just wait until this becomes the standard and publishers have ALL the power. We won't be able to anything but bendover or stop gaming altogether. Giving total control to publishers should be every gamer's nightmare. They will milk us dry.
#13.4 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Ripco_Keller  +   561d ago
I'm surprised by this response. Personally I'm wary of EA Access, they wouldn't do this if it wasn't designed to make them more money than not having it. I'm sure that if you let your subscription lapse, you'll lose whatever content you bought through it, and I'm sure that people who don't pay for the program are going to miss out on content exclusive to EA Access. The only way to fight something like this and maintain your purchasing power is for the market as a whole to reject the system, and Sony has just closed the entirety of the playstation market off.

While I see Sony's response as a good thing, many short-sighted gamers are going to be miffed about not having the option to decide for themselves, and some of them will be multi-plat gamers and are going to start buying all of their EA games on a platform which offers an EA Access subscription, ultimately hurting Sony. I'm sure Sony knows this, and while I agree with them, I'm again surprised they're willing to take one on the chin to oppose it.
kingdip90  +   561d ago
I agree, EA are not going to want to put their newer games and games that are still selling on this service in an effort to not to loose those sales to their own service. This means it will likely be games that I can get from gamestop for a couple of dollars in the bargain bin.

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

Businesses are out to maximize profit, all this service offers is convenience. You pay extra to not have to drive to gamestop. Sony are correct that is poor value for gamers.
Tedakin   561d ago | Offensive
bobsmith  +   561d ago
well i almost bought madden 25 for 25 dollars with their ps plus sale like last week. could get fifa 14 and bf4 for a yr for 5 dollars more pretty good deal actually
i dont care about keeping just want to play while wait for other games
DJustinUNCHAIND  +   561d ago
Yes. Because value to the PlayStation gamer means $5 for 4 hours as opposed to $5 for 30 days.
NegativeCreep427   561d ago | Immature | show | Replies(3)
MasterCornholio  +   561d ago
I was expecting it for the PS4 as well but I guess Sony doesn't want it for some reason.

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

I just hope EA titles continue to release on Games with Gold otherwise you have to pay an additional subscription for EA games which wouldn't be a good thing.
#18 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
from the beach  +   561d ago
Wow, let's keep an eye on this one..
modesign  +   561d ago
playstation plus already has EA titles, are they titles that you would play over and over again, maybe a couple but overall probably not,
Onenyte  +   561d ago
Considering EA showed sweet nothing at E3?

Who gives a shit...
Sm00thNinja  +   561d ago
TITANFALL 2 Xbox XCLUSIVE CONF1RM3D /sarcasm. But really this represents a much better value than the current PSNOW model what gives? Sony getting cocky again lol. Although maybe the final PSNow prices will truly reflect the better bargain. No matter what way you slice it what gives Sony? Kind of a big deal if publisher subscriptions skip Playstation
#22 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
Goku781  +   561d ago
I dont really play EA games at all so yeah, I guess thats true for this Player.
iistuii  +   561d ago
It does actually make me think about the PSnow price model. I mean you get to play the new games for 5 days before release then the EA back catalogue you get full access (not DLC) for $30 a year which is what PSnow charges for one game rental for 30 days.
MrPerfect813  +   561d ago
So i can pay 30 bucks for the year and get Madden and battlefield until their next annual releases are ready. And other ea titles also. At minimum to me they sounds better than dropping 60 for Madden then testing it in for the next edition
WeAreLegion  +   561d ago
You...and many it wrong. You don't get the newest games for free. You get 10% off the digital copy of the newest games. You get a handful of old titles for free that are changed out every once in awhile though.
SliceOfTruth888  +   561d ago
Rofl I think YOU are the one who read wrong...
marlinfan10  +   561d ago
ps nows a worse deal (as of now) so idk what they're talking about.
#26 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
flappersack  +   561d ago
Brilliant! If the companies fight more and get more competitive, this is good for the consumer!
Baka-akaB  +   561d ago
Not that i disagree with the sentiment expressed , what's with the "PSnow's current prices" argument ? There is no "current ps now" , it's in beta and testing stage , and in a flux . For all we know the final version will be far better , or worse
Gh05t  +   561d ago
PS now "does" exist in one form or another (Ive seen it used) whether in beta or not its still in existence. There is also pricing for what form of existence there is of PS Now. Based on the "Current" existence of what PS Now is this is a better deal. Whether that changes or not is only for the future but as of this MOMENT in time with the current existence of services this shows a better value. And Sony who controls the current existence of PS Now is saying that its not a good value. This is the problem. Why doesn't PS Now "flux" to lower prices yet, whats stopping them.
gamer7804  +   561d ago
It'll be competing with Sonys playstation now. That's why
Sarobi  +   561d ago
How? If anything it competes with PS+
gamer7804  +   561d ago
competes with both, both are paying money for temporary access to a game or game collection.
NegativeCreep427  +   561d ago
So just a week ago EA goes from being the bane of every "true gamers" existence and being the worst company in America to Now all of a sudden EA is the greatest third-party publisher out there and they offer great value...hmmm I wonder why? Maybe Microsoft's strategy to just throw money in all directions to third-party publishers really is working. At least in restoring their sycophantic fanbase's attitude about the Xbox One.
#29.2 (Edited 561d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
gamer7804  +   561d ago
The service is overpriced yah, but the option is nice to have if a game pops on the service you want to try.
shadowsmoke36  +   561d ago
And all it will do is for now to have a subscription which most people want anyways and it probably will be around or just under that price. If the happens again then Sony would have undercut microsoft and EA yet again. See titanfall for more info.
Ryan741  +   561d ago
Its all about options and Sony just denied their customers a choice, strange move.
Onenyte  +   561d ago
Not if having that choice of option(ea) devalues the best option out there for your console of choice may it be ps+ or GwG, that would be stupid.

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

Supermarkets have been doing this for years .
Ryan741  +   561d ago
But they say they stand for the players, and now its all business. Really disappointed in Sony about this. The new slogan should be "For the players, when it suits us".
MegaRay  +   561d ago
I think MS bought it for exclusivity, or maybe a timed one.
shadowsmoke36  +   561d ago
Dude this is a direct response to ps now which will probably force sony to add a subscription to now for around the same price or just under that price and if that happens microsoft is done.
shadowsmoke36  +   561d ago
Dude have you ever thought about this one fact. Lets look at the facts. This will give a 10% discount for new games on the store sony already does this with plus then it is cheaper for the retail copy anyways. Second does this not force sony hand in making ps now a subscription for probably the same price or less? Third we are talking about only EA games and mostly older games. This was a response by microsoft to force sony hand once again and we will have to see what sony does but my guess is a subscription service for the same price on now. Mark my words if that happens then this will be a afterthought. Now would crush the competition and it will show that microsoft has nothing to compete with it and it actually could move even more systems. So don't fret from what you hear first cause sony is listening we just have to hope we make a loud enough voice for them to do this.
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Unravel Review (Xbox Enthusiast)

9m ago - Unravel is a gorgeous, thought provoking tale of life. Tackling elements of the joy and tragedy t... | Xbox One

Looks like Battle Worlds: Kronos is coming to consoles

3h ago - Following an appearance on Amazon, GamesAsylum reports that the Kickstarter funded RTS Battle Wor... | PS4

Track the Release Date for PlayStation VR

Now - Sony is yet to reveal the exact release date for PlayStation VR. Start tracking it now using | Promoted post

Fable Legends - Heroes of Albion: Meet Celeste

4h ago - Lionhead "Time to take a closer look at Fable Legends' light Priestess and resident stargazer... | PC

The Cosplay of Game Party Japan 2016

4h ago - Kotaku: "Game Party Japan 2016 had concerts, video game tournaments, and board games galore. It a... | PS4

The Culling, AKA Hunger Games the Game, Gets a Closed Alpha

4h ago - EB: Xaviant has announced that The Culling, its new Hunger Games-like battle royale title, will b... | PC