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.
XiNarutoUzumaki1114d ago (Edited 1114d 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?

4logpc1114d 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.

psuedo1114d 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--1114d ago


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

1114d ago
Dlacy13g1114d 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.

choujij1114d ago (Edited 1114d 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

morganfell1114d 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?

Deltaohio1114d 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.

ShinMaster1114d ago (Edited 1114d ago )

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

DeadMansHand1114d 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?

DragonKnight1114d 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.

creatchee1114d ago


"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.

donthate1114d ago


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-1114d ago


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

4Sh0w1114d ago (Edited 1114d 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.

morganfell1114d ago


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.

morganfell1114d 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.

gedden71114d 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...

creatchee1114d ago


"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.

Infamazdre1114d 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_PS41114d 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.


Darrius Cole1114d ago


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.

HumanatPlay1113d 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.

morganfell1113d ago (Edited 1113d 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.

2cents1113d 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?

guitarded771113d 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>

UltimateMaster1113d 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.

DLConspiracy1113d ago (Edited 1113d 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.

creatchee1113d ago


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.

DragonKnight1113d 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.
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 1113d ago
BitbyDeath1114d ago (Edited 1114d 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.

iamnsuperman1114d ago (Edited 1114d 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

Bigpappy1114d ago (Edited 1114d 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.