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?

[ValKilmer]

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.

[Nitrowolf2]

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.

[rdgneoz3]

"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?

[Nitrowolf2]

@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

[Godmars290]

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.

[Death]

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.

[Bigpappy]

@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!

[WickedLester]

@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.

[titans9999]

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

[marlinfan10]

"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

[Prime157]

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.

[marlinfan10]

@prime

i think you're missing the point

[TheRedButterfly]

@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?

[andydalum]

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

[psuedo]

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.

[xDHAV0K24x]

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

[VegasDawg]

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?

[geddesmond]

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.

[user7402931]

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 jin]

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.

[Prime157]

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 jin]

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.

[geddesmond]

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 jin]

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

[nicksetzer1]

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.

[Eonjay]

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_JEFF]

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.

[Magnes]

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

[truefan1]

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.

[EData]

^
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.

[OrangePowerz]

@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 jin]

@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.

[nicksetzer1]

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

[Prime157]

I agree with Jeff.

Also, this could cause a lot of studios signing under these publishers to lose out on profits they deserve.

And Nick, yes, we can choose not to buy it, but if it steers the industry as a whole that direction, then the people who bought it stole my ability to choose.

[its_JEFF]

@TrueFan1

How would you get $600 worth of games from EA Access? You're gonna get $600 worth of EA games for $30 a year, I hope you don't think it's gonna be new games?

Look man, you gotta stop being such a fanboy. I kinda wish I could see your reaction if this deal happened to PS and not Xbox.

[Bigpappy]

I too can see why people will look at this at a glance and think "I don't want to play every publisher to play their games!". But that is not what is being sold here.

This is more like PSNOW with EA discounts and early access. It is about making money off of used (old) games. It is an attempt to catering to that GameStop buyer who would trade a $60 game for a $10 game they have not yet played. In this case they get a modest discount as and incentive to buy New digitally, with a discount and test before you buy, while also having access to those games you might have missed.

Keep in mind that gamers can choose to completely ignore these offerings, and continue to buy and play the way they currently do.

I am planning on basing my subscription to the service base on what they have coming done the pipeline in the year ahead. If I see 6 games that I know I am definitely going to buy, I will do the yearly deal. if it is less than that, I will pay the $5 only for the month my game is releasing. I say this because I am more interested on digital discounts that I am in playing game I might have missed. But will gladly give them a try and no extra cost. so I will only use it when I need it. Still buy the same games I would have bought. Use the service when I want.

[VegasDawg]

Huh? It's still an option and that's never a bad thing. You can pick and choose who you want to use and if not, you can still buy games you want. So I don't get what your saying. Nothing is going to change except now you would have more options, now matter how you spin it.

Sony and MS is investing heavily into the cloud,it's inevitable. People are just afraid of change, I welcome it. BY the way I hate EA.

Your speaking like a well informed hardcore gamer, remember it's the casuals that decide and all they will see is the games, games, games.

What gamer in his/her right mind would not like more options to play games? And most casuals are still on the fence.

[iamnsuperman]

Not exactly. With the program on the PS4 it is likely no EA games will make it to Plus as they would want to push the service as much as possible (people had to instal origin to get EA games working so this isn't such a ludicrous idea. The service is designed to compete with Plus and Games with Gold). Without it, it is unlikely EA are going to deny profits from Sony paying them for their titles appearing on Playstation Plus when the instal base is pretty high compared amongst next generation systems (they are not going to lose out to people not getting access and sticking with plus as access isn't there)

Also what Eonjay said

[MasterCornholio]

Depends if those options hinder services like games with gold or PlayStation plus. But we won't know that until the service comes out but with EA you have to be cautious.

[shaenoide]

and what will you do when every publisher will make you pay 5 bucks a month?

[OrangePowerz]

We still don't know how it works in the long run. How often will they add games and remove some from the Vault, what happens if we buy DLC and they take the game off the Vault?

We also don't know what demands EA made for them to bring the service to the console. For all we know they could have said that trials come out a month after the X1 and that they update the Vault also also slower. I have my doubts that EA would have offered a like for like service and content on both consoles.

We also don't know if EA was actually really interested in bringin it to the PS4 or just made it look like they wanted and came up with ridiculous demands of what they wanted. That it's not on PC and their partnership with MS in the past would indicate that their preferred platform is the X1 anyway.

That's the company that tried to rip people off with Dungeon Keeper, made online passes and throws microtransactions in every gsme including Dead Space. Somewhere is a big catch that nobody knows about.

[Sayai jin]

Good questions. I have some of those same questions. I am in the EA Access beta and got the year sub for $30. I got Madden, FIFA, and Peggles for my kids...so it's paid for itself at least for this year already. If the rotation of the vault games are frequent enough then I may sign up again...that all depends.

[VegasDawg]

Ummmmmmm. WOW. Ok, EA is in the business to make money. No company in its right mind would turn more of it down. Your comment is not realistic. There is no conspiracy Sony said no, bottom line.

You can go ahead and take your tin foil hat off now.
I mean Sony owns the market right now. Do you really think EA didn't want to get their greedy little hands on it? To the Moon we go.

[uth11]

according to the Forbes article, Sony would be on the hook for handling the customer support for this service. So it's not like they can just say ok EA you can offer this, they would have to do a lot of work to make it happen. I guess they decided it would not be worth it.

Who wants to handle support for EA with their buggy games and irate customers? :P

[BlackTar187]

Nick you do understand the implications of what you're saying right?

If sony let some app on their system that stole personal info would you be upset at them? Of course you would. So then why do you think the very simple and generic Options>no options blanket statement actually applies here.

Be more specific.

This applies to MS too. That line of thought at sucha low level is wrong in so many ways.

[godofboobees]

Yea like why is everybody all of a sudden liking EA?

[uth11]

you know why..

console war thing. Xbox has something PS4 doesn't, so now EA will be the greatest publisher.

[ThatOneRiggaNob]

I wouldn't say everyone is liking EA all of a sudden. It's just that no one really expected EA to come out with something that actually seems like a good deal for gamers. I personally never had a problem with EA at all but I know some do.

[Lenrulesdaworld]

Its just a program people can opt in to monthly or yearly, no matter the comparison for xbox gamers & fans its a win. For sony its not a loss & their is nothing wrong with that, being xbox gamers dont have a service like ps now.

[Macdaddy71]

I don't like either one, but they not the same!!! One is old burn out games n the other is new junk games that won't don't sell...
If gamers don't stop support all this crap no one will have the money to play..
Sony n MS online $50 each,
EA, Sony, DLC, in game sale..is all $$$$$
How much money are we going to let them steal from us????

[Macdaddy71]

No matter how much we like EA they do have Power!!!! You put EA n MS power together!!! Hmmm maybe EA is MS answer to Sony PS Now??? Never know,.. I do know Two companies are better then One...So might want to watch this partnership!!! I own both system, and if it come to having to pay for one I would have to say it would be EA just because of the newer games, if I want to play old games I would just start ordering the games I like to keep n play from amazon for my ps3,
If I was Indie game makers I would be upset with PS Now cause gamers will get older ps3 games for same price n better..no body even thought bout that yet

[uth11]

EA has been voted worst company in America getting together with M$. That's a match made in hell if there ever was one!

*shudder*

[mrpsychoticstalker]

Sony messed up, even the most hard-core ps fan knows this. They should have given players the option just like they been doing since the release of the PS4.

EA Access sounds really good, and I am sure it will be a success.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

Was it ever actually stated by Sony that they rejected the service, as in EA approaching them, or are all these articles just goin off the statement Sony made about not having good value, after the fact?

[N8]

The only EA game I care about playing early is madden. If madden comes out every august ,could I just get this EA thing for the month of august and then never get it again until next august?

[Retrohelix]

I have found many of these comments quite interesting and most people seem to have a take on whether EA Access is a good or bad thing.
I have a more wait and see approach. It might be wonderful and a real benefit to Gamers, but it equally could be a clever way of gaining extra profit from us, without us really knowing.
I have many questions, most of which probably won't be answered till the service goes live, but I do have fears as well.
My job is a Buyer. I buy games for a very big UK Retailer. One of the companies I deal with is EA and it is through dealing with them for the last 7 years, that makes me wonder what is hidden in the small print.
EA are not an easy company to deal with. They hold a lot of clout and exercise it readily. The biggest issue we have with them, is 'cost price'. Their Cost Price for games is way above any other publisher, only COD has ever come close to equaling them in their perceived value of their products. To give you an example, (I can only speak from a UK point of view I'm afraid), Fifa 14 'cost price' was over £40. EA's 'suggested' retail price was £60. And we are talking 360/PS3 version here, not the X1/PS4 version.
As a retailer £60 for Fifa 14 is suicide. Supermarkets pretty much always sell EA games as loss leaders, as they make huge profits else where.
Most Independent retailers source their EA products from either the Grey Market or from supermarket and online deals. As this is often a better 'cost price' for them, than buying direct from EA's UK distributors.
Now if EA Access is offering you 15% discount on new titles, but they value that title at £60, the EA Access price will be £51 thereabouts. Most bricks and mortar retailers will have gone at £45 to be competitive with online.
So will you download a title for £51 or buy the physical copy for £45, especially as you can trade the physical copy in later when you're bored of it.
Now till the service goes live, there is no way of knowing if EA will be pricing competitively or at what their perceived RRP is. I am assuming they wouldn't be stupid enough to go at what they suggest to retail should be the RRP of their games, but we don't really know at the moment.
Another interesting fact about why I think EA is doing this. EA is one of the most vocal detractors of the pre-owned games market.
Now the argument around Publishers vs Pre-owned profits (for those who don't know. Pre-owned is by far the biggest margin maker for any games retailer, working roughly to a 40% margin vs a 13-20% margin on mint). The best thing for a publisher is to get a much of their product purchased via downloads, than physical copies. You can't walk into your local Games Store and trade in the digital copy, so the publisher doesn't lose profits through the pre-owned market.
Do I think EA sees an advantage with EA Access to try and hamper the pre-owned market, certainly. They are one of the most vocal detractors of it.
On a side note, if anyone ever wondered why EA introduced the online codes to their games? It was to hamper trade-ins and the preowned sales of their products. If you buy a used copy of their game, but can't get online as the code is used, you can buy the code off them, or you buy a new copy of the game. Either way, they gain some profit out of it, but that is an argument for another day.

Will EA Access be a good thing. Will it be a bad thing?
I have no idea, I will wait and see, but as some one that has dealt with them for 7 years, one thing I learned very quickly... with EA you always wait for the curve ball to hit you in the back of the head.

[ironmonkey]

sony already has playstation now which is the same. plus sony has a way bigger library and better.