Now Loading…EA Access for PlayStation 4

This week’s “Now Loading…” segment will focus on Sony’s rejection of EA Access feature for the PlayStation 4. PSLS staff discuss how they feel about Sony’s decision and whether they thinks it was the right move or not. Please note that each opinion should be attributed to the respective individual and not to the website as a whole.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
mrpsychoticstalker1320d ago (Edited 1320d ago )

It was not the best decision, hopefully they will soon change their mind and give this amazing option to Playstation fans.

But I am not sure how it will affect PSN

aceitman1320d ago

I know one thing, people should wait for it to come out a see how the service is , cause it can be good or a disaster. While it can be a service for half the games for half the price of live gold or ps+. And remember ea has a larger library of sports games the others.which can be the downfall of ea access compared to live gold or ps+. And gamers should remember that if ea succeeds it can be trouble with other publisher's , folling there footsteps, shrinking live gold and and psn+ libraries.

Bigpappy1320d ago (Edited 1320d ago )

I wish all the publishers would follow EA. I would move that $5 around like a stud buying huckers.

iamnsuperman1320d ago (Edited 1320d ago )


How is that a good idea. Even for the big publishers that is $15 which is $180 per year to access only back catalogue games. Then non of these games will appear of gwg of Plus so we would need to pay north of $180 (including other publishers who have a smaller back catalogue) to get into a similar situation, all be it with more games, to what we are in now. It is sad to see gamers support a future where publisher are trying to take more money from us which comes with increased cost.

Godmars2901320d ago

Don't forget that this is as much, if not more, about promoting day-one sales of new games rather than making older ones accessible for a low, recurring, price.

So that's $180 plus the expectation of companies that they'll see another $54 - remember 10% off of $60 - for each new game given a "preview" through their sub services.

Prime1571320d ago (Edited 1320d ago )


You see, ea is double dipping. In all these articles I, very rarely, see people mentioning that as EA access will ONLY OFFER *OLD* (OR UNPOPULAR OR QUICKLY DEVALUING GAMES LIKE SPORTS) EA GAMES, then as many gamers are forgetting, that to play the game with the most friends and other players is to play it in the first half year...

This means, that after the hype of a game... or better known as in business, "the most likely time to purchase" said game... that they can THEN tease you with it. You weren't going to buy it if you hadn't by then unless you got it preowned.

This is a marketing tool, plain and simple.

***If they had continued what GWG and PS+ do in offering OTHER publisher's games, THEN it might be worth it.***

Edit: I agree with the person in the article who said, "Then I found out that EA Access billing, membership, and customer service is entirely handled by the platform holder. What this means is that Microsoft will be responsible for handling any problems and issues that come up with EA Access on the Xbox One." That is just another example of what EA is trying to pull.

donthate1320d ago (Edited 1320d ago )

Allowing competition is good!

Cutting out competition and closing your platform is what console buyers have been complaining off for ages. Suddenly, limiting choice is for the "players"?

Stunting one competing service (EAA), to enhance another (PS+) is essentially predatory practice and is never in the best interest of consumers. It holds back innovation, and artificially raises prices.

If EA starts acting up and be @ass, what would happen to GwG and PS+? GwG and PS+ would be better options and vice versa!

This is a terrible move by Sony and does nothing to ensure that you will get any EA game on PS+. EA might just instead offer their games on EA Access on a "competing" platform, because there is choice.

If MS wants EA games on GwG, they will have to pay up or find higher quality games to offer. This is good for gamers, and good for MS. Forces MS to be better, and allows consumers choice!

How can you argue with that?

Other than, we don't trust "EA", but we trust "Sony"....

Prime1571320d ago (Edited 1320d ago )

@youaresalty, "Cutting out competition and closing your platform is what console buyers have been complaining off for ages. Suddenly, limiting choice is for the "players"? "

Then why won't EA launch access on PC, 360, or ps3? Those have a much, much, MUCH larger back catalogue... Again, because it's only new gen, I feel it's more of a marketing campaign (see also: playing a game-demo-early-acess that you must PURCHASE WHILE PAYING FOR EAACCESS when it could be added for free later... The free vault stuff is what they are banking on for people to subscribe, but i see no need outside.

The games in the vault right now aren't being purchased much, especially new... thus, EA access to the rescue.

Again, if EA access gave me a CHOICE of other publisher's games then I'd be excited... However, not the case.

Choice? I'm still skeptical of all of EA's choices as I feel they detract from my own choices...

ghostface91320d ago

please remind the last time an EA game was even on games with gold or ps plus. Also even if they were free it would seem to me that it would make more sense for EA to put the games form the vault free on those services. because there giving it away for free on there why not get paid by xbox and playstation for giving it away for free on their service. Not everyone is going to have ea access so why would that stop them from putting their games on there

Pro_TactX1318d ago (Edited 1318d ago )


Dead Space 3 was on PS Plus last month. Crysis 3 is on PS Plus this month.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1318d ago
Eonjay1320d ago

Well, one important consideration was that this last week, I went on the PlayStation Store and saw they had a sale. There was a ton of EA content on there that offered discounts to PS+ subscribers exceeding the 10% savings that EA Access offers. It makes the statement about value more plausible. An aspect of being a PS+ subscriber already includes discounts on EA titles.

Another analogy would be whether Battlefield Premium subscribers will see the value of their sub diminished on Xbox One without an additional EA Access sub.

Prime1571320d ago (Edited 1320d ago )

Yeah, I think this is a move for EA to try to get more from great sales like that.

They can offer those "discounts" via THEIR service while stopping it on other services in conjunction with the monthly fee.

The more I learn about EA access the more skeptical I get about how it affects US GAMERS in the long run.

Edit: I just don't trust EA's motive.

Eonjay1320d ago


Exactly, lest we forget that Battlefield 3 was free as a member of PS+ just last year. No other sub was needed.

In addition to that, members have gotten access to over 250 games since the programs inception.

All included in one subscription.

ziggurcat1320d ago


"But I am not sure how it will affect PSN"

it won't affect PSN at all. it also won't affect playstation now because it's nothing like that service.

and what do you care? you don't have any playstation system (PS3 or PS4), so... you're just concern trolling.

blackout1320d ago

I don't know why all those disagrees. PS fan don't like to own anything they download on ps+. This would be huge for them to have something like this. EA Access is PS+ with much fewer titles, with more coming. Let me guess since it's on the x1 is why all the disagrees. There is a whole lot of value in ACCESS just be patient.

ninsigma1318d ago

Where is the value in paying for a sub that gives games that become obsolete every year?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1318d ago
ramiuk11320d ago

i wouldn pay it.
i dont want EA vault,or any other vault.
Might use psnow but i like older games in memory as sometimes there never as good as once was

CuddlyREDRUM1320d ago

Why doesn't Sony just stop bringing EA games to Playstation?

If they want to take away choice, just give us Knack and Infamous. See how many consoles they sell?

scark921320d ago

That would be a massive blow to Playstation, No Fifa or Battlefield? Which is a massive market for Playstation.

Angerfist1320d ago

I'm getting Access the day it comes out since I can get my hands on BF4 and Fifa for 25€ a year. And more to come like NFS Rivals etc. The Value is there, you just need to wanna see it.

blackout1320d ago

The value is there ps fans rather spend 4.99 to play a game for four hours.

ichizon1320d ago (Edited 1320d ago )

I agree with Zarmena in this article, except that I do give a damn.

Sony is entitled to make a decision about what goes on their console before you get a decision of whether you want it or not. Especially if it affects them in multiple ways. The whole "I should be able to decide" argument is just a bandwagon statement that people started throwing around without really thinking about it, as if Sony shouldn't be able to.

I give a damn, because I have no faith in EA's intentions, even though EAA looks like a decent deal right now. I personally don't want other publishers to follow suit with this model because of how easy it is to abuse when it has been adopted.

Show all comments (31)
The story is too old to be commented.