Gamers Unhappy With Sony’s Rejection of EA Access

EA has stirred up a storm with its recent EA Access announcement. While there was some initial debate, the subscription service is definitely exclusive to Microsoft after Sony confirmed rejecting the proposal. Whether this was the best move for the gamers is still unclear, though some are already expressing their dismay, and even anger, with the company.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
user74029311332d ago (Edited 1332d ago )

not really, being stuck with ea games and missing out on other ips that ps plus provides?nah...variety is better.

@neonridr. you meen variety disquised as drm? nah im good without it mmk

Neonridr1332d ago

you wouldn't at least want the choice to have EA Access? Nobody said you would have to subscribe. Here you are preaching about "variety is better", but then you don't want more choices for gamers..... strange.

ThatOneRiggaNob1332d ago

Right? I'm confused on how he would be missing out on other ips that ps plus provides... You can have both if you wanted to. I also don't think he understands that ps plus is also a form of drm too.

creatchee1332d ago

I'm not a huge EA fan in general (Titanfall aside) and probably won't subscribe. However, this seems like a good deal for people who are interested in what EA offers. See, the thing is, different gamers want different things. Some like being able to pay to access several different games in a block. Some want a collection of physical copies. Some want to stream. Some rent. This generation, we will have the opportunity to do any and all of those, depending on which console(s) you choose.

My problem is with Sony's statement. They say that EA's service doesn't offer the value that PlayStation gamers have come to expect. Let that sink in. They are telling us, the consumers, what we should and DO expect. I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly and shouldn't fly. Blocking a service due to "expected value" is a PR move up there with "deal with it", "you can't disconnect Kinect" and "we can't just flip a switch". However, I don't see the same people who STILL browbeat those things as part of their daily vitriol getting up in arms. In fact, they're defending their loss of choice because of the name of the company taking it away from them.

Sony is blocking this service SOLELY for business purposes. They have PS Plus and PS Now, and a service like EA is offering is direct competition. Period. To call it a value less than what your audience expects is to insult your audience's powers of deduction and reason.

However, I'm fine with them blocking it. I would do the exact same thing if I were in charge and had to protect my own product. I simply wouldn't play my consumers for fools and tell them that I was only keeping their best interests at heart. That's a lie, and an insulting one at that.

PONTIAC08G8GT1332d ago


I don't have a PS, so correct me if I am wrong, but don't you need PS+ to play games online? And doesn't PS+ give you free games and discounts? So EA Access really isn't competition for the service because you are buying PS+ to play multiplayer (mostly). All the extra's that come with it are a bonus. Just like I have Gold for Xbox. I see that as a totally different product then EA Access.

creatchee1332d ago


PS+ is required for online multiplayer except for free to play games. It also offers cumulative access to several titles a month across the PlayStation family of devices and discounts on games and DLC. It used to have free trials of certain games as well, but I'm not sure if that is still the case or not.

PS Now is a streaming service that allows users to stream games from the PlayStation library on a wide range of devices, from consoles to TVs to phones (maybe?). It is on demand, as in you pay to access each title you wish to play instead of an all-encompassing monthly fee.

The reason I see them as competition is that they are both proprietary digital distribution methods, like the EA program.

Hope this helps! :)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1332d ago
PONTIAC08G8GT1332d ago

It's pretty stupid for Sony to turn this down. Basically they are saying "our gamers don't need this option." Well who is Sony to say that PS gamers wouldn't want this? Isn't it the gamers choice to purchase it? I'm sure Sony/MS is getting some percentage of each subscription. What's wrong with have PS+, EA Access, and getting a huge variety of games?

As it will be on MS, you get 2 free games with gold, discounts on DLC and games, and now with EA Access for just $5 you get to play a bunch of full games, discounts on DLC, and early demo's. It's a win for gamers on Xbox.

700p1332d ago Show
stuna11332d ago

You can't please everyone! Besides I doubt this was ever a consideration of Sonys! In layman's terms competing services.

Lawboy21332d ago

There was already an article stating that sony turned down wa because they felt that it wasnt a good value for playstation gamers

stuna11332d ago

And what have I stated that disputes that fact? Just because a reason is given, doesn't necessarily meaan it's the only reason.

typittt691332d ago

That's called PR talk. Obviously working great on you

tgunzz1332d ago

This probably would heavily impact their psnow service. Could be probably why they said no (if offered).

TimeSkipLuffy1332d ago (Edited 1332d ago )

EA wants to make more money and might not give any more titles to GfG or PS+
You only get retail games from EA through EA probably. Doesn't matter which console you prefer.
If other will follow GfG and PS+ we will see many more indies than they have now.

IF this exclusive deal doesn't effect EA games for PS+ I'm kinda happy about Sony rejecting it.
IF the titles are removed from time to time I'm kinda happy about Sony rejecting it.
IF you get access to a growing library of EA games for $5 each month and I don't want it to be one game per year I don't like Sonys decision at all.

It all comes down to how EA is going to set the rules for their service.

truefan11332d ago (Edited 1332d ago )

Sony can't blast MSFT for not giving gamers a choice, then turn right around and not give gamers a choice. Add to that the terrible statement from sony. 1)ps+ is required for online gaming hence the 200% increase. 2)psnow is the service they should be comparing to EA Access. 3)EA Access does not require a gold membership, so sony essentially spoke for 8+ million ps4 gamers.

It's an app, if you don't want it you don't have to buy it. To me it sounds like a good deal, if you play EA games.

If I'm understanding correctly:
1 game 4 hours $5 is good value
4 games 1 month $5 is bad value

1 game less than 1 year old (tlour) at $50 is good value
4 games less than 1 year old $30 + $6 off any other EA game is bad value.

LordMaim1332d ago

The way that post was phrased, it was almost as though you had an agenda that you were pushing.

First, it's possible to think that EA and PS Now's Beta pricing are both out of whack.

Second, I'll be coming back to The Last of Us for years. It's one of the highest rated games of all time, has universal critical acclaim, and is one of my personal favorites. $50 is a good value, and that has nothing to do with the relative quality of EA's offering.

EA's program is just a backdoor into Microsoft's old DRM plan. It's a way to keep their most traded in titles off the streets, by giving short time players a cheaper alternative. Before you say it, I don't like the PS Now service either, but at least it's a much wider offering. Personally, I won't use either.

stuna11332d ago

I thought no one would get it! But people don't have to take my word for it, the horse's mouth is a better source. It's been stated time and time again, that Microsoft plans are remain on course with their initial goals as to what was originally planned concerning the Xbox1 console! And who was a major player in that plan? EA!

The difference we are seeing now is, they've just decided to take the scenic route and, be a tad bit more subtle, just enough to come in under the radar! Look at the death grip stranglehold they have on PC's, do people not see they want that same control over consoles!? Hell they went on record, saying they were going to kill Sony! And not in a playfull kind of way. They meant it literally.

ziggurcat1332d ago


"1 game less than 1 year old (tlour)"

TLOU was originally released on June 14, 2013. The remaster released yesterday, July 29, 2014. Do the math, and stop spreading misinformation.

fonger081332d ago

I can't imagine this won't eventually come to the PSN. In a way, this a sort of, direct competition vs their upcoming PS Now service, but I honestly don't see why the two can't go hand-in-hand. Besides, if Ubisoft or Activison, or Squarenix say "me too," you know Sony is going to want to give that incentive to their current and potential customers.

ichizon1332d ago

I think that is part of the problem though. If a lot of publishers say "me too", then we're going to have the possibility to pay $100 a month for these services. And who is responsible if the service is not working properly? And it is more akin to PS+ than PS Now. You don't get all the games free. You get 10% discounts on their games, premium game services not available elsewhere, early trials (i.e. demos, woohoo), and a couple of old games that go on rotation, if the reports are right.

Of course, actually subscribing is up to each individual, and Sony would probably rake in some sort of licensing fee from that money. But I think it's something they have the right to deny if they want to, and not just something that is up to the potential subscribers. It's a service on top of their own, which in turn might affect their reputation.

You could always get an Xbox One instead. And why aren't they offering this through Origin on PCs?

Show all comments (28)
The story is too old to be commented.