Top
760°

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

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

The story is too old to be commented.
XiNarutoUzumaki790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

We allowed DLC to happen.

We allowed microtransactions to happen.

We allowed crappy games to keep selling.

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

4logpc790d ago

A paywall? Try again.

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

You can still buy EA games on disc or digitally.

psuedo790d ago

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

--Onilink--790d ago

@psuedo

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

I dont recall anything thinking that when PS Now was announced

horoto790d ago SpamShow
Dlacy13g790d ago

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

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

choujij790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

Yikes. O_o

morganfell790d ago

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

Deltaohio790d ago

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

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

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

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

ShinMaster790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

DeadMansHand790d ago

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

DragonKnight790d ago

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

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

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

creatchee790d ago

@DragonKnight

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

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

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

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

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

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

donthate790d ago

@DragonKnight

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

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

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

DOMination-790d ago

Morganfell

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

4Sh0w790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

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

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

morganfell790d ago

@creatchee,

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

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

morganfell790d ago

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

gedden7790d ago

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

creatchee790d ago

@morganfell

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

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

Traders gonna trade, as it were.

Infamazdre790d ago

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

XB1_PS4789d ago

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

FTFY

Darrius Cole789d ago

@creatchee

No way!

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

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

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

HumanatPlay789d ago

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

morganfell789d ago (Edited 789d ago )

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

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

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

2cents789d ago

Dlacy summed it up perfectly.

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

What the F is going on this gen?

guitarded77789d ago

@ Deltaohio

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

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

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

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

UltimateMaster789d ago

How many services will we need to have?

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

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

DLConspiracy789d ago (Edited 789d ago )

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

creatchee789d ago

@morganfell

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

DragonKnight789d ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ Show (26) more repliesLast reply 789d ago
BitbyDeath790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

iamnsuperman790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

Bigpappy790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

its_JEFF790d ago

@BigPappy

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

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

donthate790d ago

@BitbyDeath

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

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

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

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

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

4Sh0w790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 790d ago
Angels3785790d ago TrollingShowReplies(2)
XxExacutionerxX790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

psuedo790d ago

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

SniperControl790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

JackBNimble790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

Just a snip of EA's TOS...

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

EA reserves the right to change and update the EA Access Services, and the EA Content offered through the EA Access Services without any liability to you. In particular, Vault Titles are subject to change and may be removed, and the online services for certain Vault Titles may be discontinued. In the event that EA changes the EA Access Services, including the removal of Vault Titles or discontinuation of online services for certain Vault Titles, we will provide thirty (30) days advance notice to you by posting a notice on http://www.ea.com/eaaccess.

Unlimited online, what about offline?

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

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

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

WOW... what a great deal/s

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

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

objdadon789d ago

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

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 789d ago
Clogmaster790d ago

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

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

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

TKCMuzzer790d ago

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

Deadpool101790d ago

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

truefan1790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

MRMagoo123790d ago

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

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

700p790d ago

Sony fanboys are blind puppets.

ziggurcat790d ago

@truefan:

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

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

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

*ahem*

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

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

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

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

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

what are PS fans excusing Sony for, exactly?

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

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

Zenith4k790d ago

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

badaxx790d ago

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

GTgamer790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magicite790d ago

EA and MS deserve each other.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 790d ago
HaydenJameSmith790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

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

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

@Zenith4k

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

Zenith4k790d ago

You would need gold and ps+ to play multiplier

Krakatomia790d ago

Just EA content only for 5$ monthly?

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

PumpkinEater69790d ago SpamShow
FanboyKilla790d ago

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

Ocsta790d ago

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

Mystogan790d ago

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

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

lowkey10011790d ago

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

Christopher790d ago

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

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

liquidhalos790d ago

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

CaptainObvious878790d ago

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

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

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

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

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

You can't buy any DLC then.

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

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

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

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

Wake up people.

Aceman18790d ago

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

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

4Sh0w789d ago (Edited 789d ago )

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

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

Azzanation790d ago (Edited 790d ago )

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

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

cee773789d ago (Edited 789d ago )

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ocsta790d ago

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