Top
190°

Sony's Rejection of EA Access Raises Many Questions

Hardcore Gamer: Could Sony making a deal with a top-level publisher like EA do them more harm than good?

Read Full Story >>
hardcoregamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
ValKilmer1112d ago

PS+ is better than EA Access will ever be because it has games that real gamers actually want to play, and not just made by committee generic cash grabs.

Nitrowolf21112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

I don't really understand so much about the whole "it's not a good value for gamers" thing when that should be decided by gamers. To me, the EA Access for $30 a year for access to a bunch of games isn't all that bad, despite the company behind it. It's not forced upon you, just like Netflix, Hulu, Music Unlimited, and all the other paid subscriptions on PSN.

I know PS Now is in Beta, but when you (Sony) make a statement saying it's not a good value for gamers and then release PS Now with some of the pricing options, you just realize it's all about the business.

The issue I see from this though is that every company is going to start doing this now. Also if that happens, less titles will appear on PS+ from the third party companies going for this type of service.

rdgneoz31112d ago

"and then release PS Now with some of the pricing options, you just realize it's all about the business."

You do realize the pricing for the games in PS Now are set by the publishers and not by Sony, right?

Nitrowolf21112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

@rdgneoz3

Yes I do, but Sony approves the title at the end of the day and puts to pricing they asked for. My first comment was basically saying that what Sony said about it 'not being a good value for gamers' has nothing to do with why they don't want it on their service, at least I assuem so since they are approving these ridiculous pricings

Godmars2901112d ago

The thing is its access to a "selection" of games at EA's discretion. With the real thing being that gamers are hearing what they want to hear, namely that DA: Inquisition will be available through this service, while EA is saying you'll get to play it five days before its release to retail and will have the option to buy via DDL with a discount. continue playing where you left off during what amounts to a trial period *after* you've bought the game.

What I think EA is really doing is dressing up a paid service for demos, then padding it with low profile titles and AAAs that are 6-12 months old. Older titles which are of no direct or immediate value to them.

Death1112d ago

If third parties are dictating prices, why isn't there a lower price for Sony published games on the service? Sony will charge as much as people are willing to pay. No one has a gun to their head making them charge these amounts and it's not because it is a beta. If people are willing to pay what is currently being asked, that is the price. If the service is dead or doesn't hit their internal projections, the price will be adjusted. Making excuses will change nothing.

Bigpappy1112d ago

@rdgneoz3: you make it sound like Sony has no say in the pricing and that it's the evil publishers doing a cash drab. The truth is, Sony did not pay millions of $'s for that steaming service so that publishers can rip off PS gamers. They spent the M$ because they have a pricing strategy that can make that money back with a nice profit to boot.

PS-NOW is about streaming old games that are pretty much dead. Publishers will willingly take a small cut rather than let it go to GAMESTOP. You guys keep preaching how M$ and EA are trying to kill the use game market. yet strongly support PS-NOW. If PS-NOW succeeds the Used Game Market is pretty much dead for GameStop on older games on PS3.

EA no doubt saw what Sony was trying to do, and decided that they could offer gamers a better value if they go to them directly and give the console manufacturers a small hosting fee. Gamers should get to decide which works bets for them. Sony is finding difficulty with this, because if undercuts what they were trying to build. They can't win if EA fights back. Ask Nintendo how tough it is to not have EA games released on you console. Obviously Sony would still survive, but it will hurt badly!

WickedLester1112d ago

@Nitrowolf2

What concerns me about what EA is doing is that it's going to establish a precedent with other developers to follow suit. Pretty soon you have 5 or 6 companies doing the same damn thing and before you know it gamers will be 5.00 to death for services that I don't feel provide much of a value. Also I'm afraid companies are going to use things like exclusive DLC as leverage to get people to sign up. I pay for PS Plus and Live Gold. That's enough! Any of these services need to be under those 2 umbrellas.

titans99991111d ago

Ugh! You are being ripped off....DO NOT BUY SUBSCRIPTION FEES, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1111d ago
marlinfan101112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

"games that real gamers actually want to play"

lol thanks for letting us know what a real gamer is. some of us would rather play fifa, bf4, madden or peggle over road not taken, fez, towerfall , etc.. if you like those games, good for you, but we don't all have the same taste

Prime1571112d ago

Dead space 3 (which is an EA game) was last month, crysis 3 this month... it gets big titles too, you just conveniently left out the other two consoles that PlayStation plus also benefits.

Just saying.

marlinfan101112d ago

@prime

i think you're missing the point

TheRedButterfly1111d ago

@Marlinfan10

Prime isn't missing the point - he's convienantly dancing around it to pad the list and ignore your well-said rebuttal to someone who's claiming that "real gamers" all have identical tastes.

Me? I personally enjoy the Battlefield games. Yes, they're broken... and I definitely have my fair share of "F THIS GAME!" moments... But I'd rather BF4 than Towerfall. And on the same note, I'd rather have Fez than Madden 25.

Everyone has a different preference, and for Sony to limit the options of anyone (much less come straight out and tell everyone how wrong they are for thinking the service offers anyone a good value) is just preposterous.

What happened to Sony being "4 the gamer" or whatever?

andydalum1112d ago

I love the arrogance you have behind what a real gamer is. So dragon age Inquisition isn't a game real gamers wanna play. Sports games means your not a real gamer. Battlefield and who knows what else in the future. If you buy 6 games a year alone you are getting your money back with the 10% off new games. Plus the early access to games. Not to mention free playing little bit older games. I'm confused how you think this is a bad thing. I for one love having the physical disc call me old fashion so i won't get this but TONS of people prefer digital copies only. This is a smart move for EA and Microsoft and best of the GAMER

psuedo1112d ago

I played the first dragon age and hated it. Now I know theyve improved combat, and all that good stuff, but I dont want to play lgbtq age inqusistion. I dont buy 6 ea games a year (aahaahahaa) nor do I play sports titles. Im not so sure I want to even play another battlefield game either. Best one was Bad company 2. They dont even get why people liked that game (as they themselves stated.) They dont even get their own fanbase? Only game I will get from them is battlefront, and it wont be 60 when I get it.

xDHAV0K24x1112d ago

"the real gamers" *barfs* smh...

VegasDawg1111d ago

Wow your delusional, no wonder Sony needs to make decisons for you.

The Sims alone sold 16 million copies. No one wants to play EA games? What Sony fanBOY planet are you on?

geddesmond1111d ago

The way I feel about EA access is, it's EA. There has to be some catch somewhere down the line. Aside from the fact that all EA games now come incomplete and need micro transactions or DLC thats expensive for what they are to get the full experience. The games on offer would have been bought already by those wanting to play them.

Do you really want to pay for leftovers. I would rather these games drop to 10 or 20 euros and buy them then if I'm bored that pat 5 euros a moth for subscription access.

The question I see being raised in my own head is, What exactly are EA up to. Given there whole track record over the years.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1111d ago
user74029311112d ago

with ea access you are limited to only there games, granted they do make good games but i would rather have diversity from alot of publishers like rockstar, sony, ubisoft, thq, activision, ea, ect ect ect

Sayai jin1112d ago

True, EA Access "only" gives access to games published by EA. With that said, EA is the largest game publisher in the world...so they have a vast library of games. So this program has great potential. Diversity of publisher's...thats covered by Xbox Games for Gold and PS+ gives you free games from a variety of publishers.

On topic, the important thing that people are missing is that it gives gamers a choice. You can get EA Access or not. It's not forced upon anyone. More options for gamers is a good thing no matter how people try to spin it.

Prime1571112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

A vast library of games... on xbox1?

There's 8 right now. And it's a way to profit on their annualised titles that quickly lose value when the next year's version releases (mainly sports).

But seriously... if the service extended to last generation, then you could argue vast. Until it includes to last gen or their current gen library grows, I am still skeptical of this service.

Sayai jin1112d ago

I did not say a vast library of games on XB1. said EA is the largest game publisher and have a vast library of games. So there is nothing to what you called argue. There are 8 games now, but seeing how EA publishes a lot of games it has the potential to have a lot more games over time.

Yes, 8 games currently in the vault. The service has not even launched. The beta started the other day which I am in.

One could look at it as a way to profit on annualized games, but the same could be said when an annualized game is brought down in price right before it's successor is released.

It gives gamers an option no matter which way you slice it. It's not mandatory so if you don't want it then don't get it and if you do then do so.

Again, I never mentioned it had a vast library of games on the XB1. Give it time.

Nothing wring with being skeptical. I paid $30 for the yearly subscription and downloaded Peggles, Madden, and FIFA for my kids for free. $100 to $150 worth of games for free.

geddesmond1111d ago

Options???? Its only an option when they make their whole library of games available on subscription.

Take dragon Age extinction. How long do you reckon it will take before that becomes available for subscription. A month? a year? I'll tell you when. When game sales slow down so much its like they stopped. Then they'll reap the benifits of their over priced DLC and micro transactions because they know gamers go OCD on that crap. Its built into our addictive nature.

Sayai jin1111d ago

Yes, options. You can either opt to get the service or opt not to. That's called an option.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1111d ago
nicksetzer11112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

The only question is why people think Sony making decisions for us and taking options away is a good thing. Regardless of interest in this program, options > no options.

Eonjay1112d ago

My major issue with EA Access is that it could catch on. We could find ourselves in a situation where we are paying individual Publishers separate subscription fees.

As a business professional, it is a great idea. As a consumer, not so much.

its_JEFF1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

This is my concern as well... What happens then, If the other Big Pubs create their own "Access"? This is something that should have been rolled into LIVE/PS+, make those deals on the back end between the 2 or 3 companies. Profit sharing if their games get downloaded or holding special sales for their games on a specific platform ala STEAM.

I mean when you put it in simple terms like "options vs no options" of course "no options" is less attractive. Instead of having a FootLocker where all the shoe brands are located, we'll have a Nike Store, Adidas Store, Puma Store etc. Look people hated STEAM in the beginning, they slowly came to love it cause it did such a good job of curating PC games into one space.

Take off the fanboy wars googles, this is bigger than your petty PS vs Xbox thing.

Magnes1112d ago

@its_JEFF you hit on it right there "ala Steam" all these companies see how well Valve is doing with Steam.

truefan11112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

And what is the problem if it catches on. I spend up to $600 a year on games. I would rather pay a subscription and get more games for those same $600. What the hell are yall so scared of. I thought GAMERS WANTED OPTIONS. None of us have the same predicament, I prefer more subscriptions like EA Access.

EData1112d ago

^
Problem is, EA's service is only for EA games! That is great if you only play EA games, but a streaming service should be ALL publishers. If this catches on, one company will charge 30 a month, another will charge the same, Rockstar may charge the same to stream theirs. Soon enough your paying hundreds of dollars a month for different publishers games.

That is why I like the idea of PSNow more, even though they need to work on pricing.

OrangePowerz1112d ago

@Truefan

Very shortsighted. It's money grabing EA. Given how they operate sooner or later they will make DLC or other content exclusive for EA access and charge you for that, for buying the DLC and the game.

Sayai jin1112d ago

@Eonay- I agree with most of what you said. Other publishers could start similar programs, but if they are like EA Access they will be optional. For example, a person can pay for Ubisoft game out front or sign up for their subscription based service to get some of their games for free and 10% off. More options available, and the gamer can make the choice. I personally like having choices.

nicksetzer11112d ago

And if other publishers do it and it catches on then what? You still can choose not to buy it...