No EA Access on PS4: The Right Call?

EA has announced that the beta period for its new subscription service, EA Access, has officially ended and that the service should be available to all Xbox One users by the end of the day.

When the publisher unveiled the service two weeks ago it was revealed that Sony had, in fact, passed on the opportunity to host EA Access on PS4 as it believed the service didn’t offer “good value.”

[ZodTheRipper]

I don't see much value in EA Access because it's limited to EA games, they might be the biggest publisher but they certainly don't have the best games. I think Sony made the right call to keep this stuff away from their platforms, imagine every publisher starting this kind of subscription... I wouldn't be interested in any of them because they all can offer only their own games and every publisher publishes only like 1-2 really quality games per year while Sony can offer everything in one.

[DJustinUNCHAIND]

But they could have still given the people a choice.

But they decided not to. I don't blame them, but let's not pretend that their reasoning behind the decision is anything noble.

[Eonjay]

Its not noble because Sony is a corporation and not a person. They were however protecting the value of their PS+ sub. Sony offers EA content and discounts to things such as EA DLC as a part of PS+. I believe Gold should do the same thing.
Sony was right, but not for noble reasons I agree.

After all EA Access doesn't require Gold for online play. That further diminishes the value of their offering. It is like a Mini Gold sub that works for Only EA games. When you compare it to Gold and PS+, the value of Access is pretty low.

[iamnsuperman]

@Eonjay

Gold is still required for online play though. For a game like battlefield 4 that is pretty much a must. You do not need gold for accessing the store but you do for online play. That makes this whole thing rather expensive especially if it catches on

The diminishing value rather comes from no EA games appearing on games with gold (also I suspect you won't get discounts, betas without EA access further diminishing the value). Basically something users used to get for one payment is now behind two payment walls

[MrBeatdown]

It's not like you get to choose between getting EA games through Games With Gold or through EA Access. Microsoft allowed EA to make that decision for you. Games With Gold can kiss any potential EA games goodbye. The funny thing is EA would have inevitably given out some of their games on Plus or GWG. They gave out four or so in the past year on Plus, including Battlefield 3. You'll never see that happen on GWG as long as EA offers their own subscription.

It's not a choice of taking or leaving a new option. It's sacrificing the possibility of getting any EA games on the service we already pay for. That's a choice Microsoft made for it's customers, the same way Sony made a choice for theirs. The only difference is it's now open season on Xbox, while Sony opted to preserve what we have.

[MasterCornholio]

I downloaded plenty of EA games with PlayStation plus the most significant ones being DeadSpace 3 and Battlefield 3. What I'm worried about is if EA will remove their games from Games with Gold and only include them in their access program. If that happens then you need to subscribe to EA access for EA games and Xbox Live Gold to play multiplayer in those games. If this program becomes successful than other publishers like Ubisoft and Activision will do the same. In the end if you want games from all publishers via Games with Gold like program you would have to have many subscriptions to do so. This in the end can end up costing someone a lot of money. A program by itself might not seem expensive but several of them (3 for example) can add 90$ on top of the 60$ that you pay Microsoft.

That's really my only worry with this and if it doesn't happen then great. But if it does then there's at least 1 platform that's free from that.

As for choice well by giving the consumer tons of choices instead of a service that provides everything can make things quite expensive in my opinion.

[bouzebbal]

EA bets on the wrong horse, once again..

[Volkama]

It's true that other publishers are likely to follow suit if this works for EA, and we could indeed have lots of subscriptions to keep up.

What if the end result is that you pay something like $20-$30 a month to access a huge catalog of games (ideally almost everything available)?

That would be brilliant imo. I'd be spending less on games that I am today, and I'd be playing more of them.

[devwan]

@Eonjay Actually you have to be online *at all times* to play the Vault games of Access on xbox one. Anyone with a sub try it yourself - pull the plug and try to play one of the four games.

Now... remind me about that always online DRM and who it was that was so keen to subject us to it... Electronic Ahhhhhhh!

@Volkama "That would be brilliant imo."

Far from it. EA are already putting the regular old stuff we all expect behind the Access paywall. Madden - 10 solid years of freely-available demos now Access ONLY.

[marlinfan10]

@superman

you're just looking for reasons to complain

"Gold is still required for online play though. For a game like battlefield 4 that is pretty much a must. You do not need gold for accessing the store but you do for online play. That makes this whole thing rather expensive especially if it catches on "

why don't you go out and buy bf4 at gamestop, that'll cost you about $20 more than the entire years subscription with ea access. that doesn't sound like a ripoff to me. if people are interested in the games available, then the service is a steal.

"The diminishing value rather comes from no EA games appearing on games with gold (also I suspect you won't get discounts, betas without EA access further diminishing the value). Basically something users used to get for one payment is now behind two payment walls"

yeah since gwg has been so packed with ea games. theres still beta without ea access, maddens the only one thats like that (obviously giving incentive to get their brand new service). fifa 15 beta codes were handed out yesterday to people outside of ea access, of course you choose not to mention that though, surprising...

[Eonjay]

Its kinda of like a spin off of Games With Gold, but now EA has segregated its material from being offered with Gold. If everyone did this, their wouldn't be anything left.

[TimeSkipLuffy]

correct.

1. Gold subscription for online play
2. sub for EA games
3. sub for Ubisoft games
4. sub for SE games
5. ...

Total: $xxx

[Volkama]

I like that list more than
1. $60 dollars for 1 new game
2. $60 dollars for 1 new game
3. $60 dollars for 1 new game
4. $60 dollars for 1 new game

My 4 point list includes 4 games for $240

Your 4 point list contains waaaaaay more games, for waaaaaay less money.

[devwan]

@Dwntwm "Moreover, Dragon Age and NFS will be added"

Receipts?

This is not fact.

You say you have both consoles so just subscribe on the xbox one. You have been very vocal about EA in the past, so what's with the made up pro-Access stuff? You don't feel all sweary about EA anymore?

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

"For only 30$/year I can play Battlefield 4, NFL 25, Fifa 14 and Peggle 2. " - you already seem to own BF4... what about the others?

[IrishSt0ner]

Today UFC is 33% off, the fear that EA access now means no deals with EA games has officially shown to be false.

[CBaoth]

@ Vol

Who are you trying to kid using those egregious day 1 prices as a basis for that delusional subscription argument? If you pay $240 on the annual Maddens, FIFAs, NHLs, and BFs, then I surmise you never heard the old proverb, "A fool and his money are soon parted"?

[Volkama]

@CBaoth

Yes that is worst case, but even so you are going to have to find some steep discounts to match the value of the subscription packages.

Taking just the current fledgling offering from EA as a baseline, so assuming 4 games per publisher for $30 a year (so again, worst case example). For the price of 1 new game a year, or maybe 3 older games, I'd have access to 8 games.

As for a fool and his money being easily parted, I'll just offer up a one-word counter: kainotophobia

[Torgul]

Yeah, you are really a fanboy, how to compare ea access And ps now? Pricing is soooooooo differtent.

You should be angry that sony did not give you the choice but as a good sheep you agree.

Funny guy.

[Sitdown]

What would be the problem if every publisher offered this.....while still offering titles in the traditional manner?

[torchic]

you have a point, but that doesn't mean PS+ as it is won't be missed if it were to be broken apart by publishers.

PS+ right now is perfect. everyone wins, and everything is under one roof, under one price. it's an excellent accessory and if you are a PlayStation gamer you'll understand how much value it adds to your console.

Microsoft may have just opened Pandora's Box by allowing EA to do this. I see how it benefits them in the short term but it just destroyes what is a really nice thing in the long term.

all I'm saying if it aint broke don't fix it. PS+ has become a really nice little subscription thingy and it would be surely missed if it became segmented.

[iamnsuperman]

Sony was protecting their own services and in turn stalled a horrific future. Yes this is a right call and Microsoft should have done the same. It is nice to see the media waking up to this expensive and bleak future but it is all too late. EA and Microsoft have opened a door that can't be closed without EA access failing. Sadly I don't think it will

[BitbyDeath]

Gonna be hard for it to stick if most gamers don't own an Xbox.

MS have only screwed their own customers... yet again.

[Lev1903]

How did MS screwed their own customers? By giving them a choice?

BF4 is still 50-60 euro's here. Now for 25 euro's i have BF4 and fifa 14. And within a year another game with the same value will come to the vault. So i have already got my money's worth.

And if people on xbox dont like the subscription then just dont buy it. As simpel as that. Dont act like MS is bad guy for giving their customer more choiches.

[iamnsuperman]

@lev1903

Choice isn't always a good thing. Everything EA related (from beta, discounts to sales and free games) is behind another paywall. That is adding cost on top of something that you got before all be it less frequently. This even ignores the problem of the floodgates being opened for other publishers to take advantage. It is making gaming more expensive for something we get already

[Lev1903]

@iamnsuperman

I'm sory, but how is giving people choiches not a good thing. Are we stupid that we can't make our decisions for ourselves?

If a product is bad then people will make the right choice. Just look how many 360 owners moved to the ps4 because they didnt like what MS offered. So MS changed their plans for the one.
If we didnt have a choice then MS would have gotten away with it.

Now the paywall you say is 30 dollar/25 euro's on a yearly basis. And just as i stated before. I got my money back just with BF4 and fifa 14.

EA has an interesting offer for ME so i Subscribe. If they didn't i wouldn't have. As simple as that.

I would have hated if MS made the choice for me.

[BitbyDeath]

@Lev, previously you could get EA games through GwG. That option is no longer possible now that MS agreed to have EA Access. There is no choice, just added cost if you want what you had or less service if you choose not to pay.

[devwan]

@Lev1903 "And within a year another game with the same value will come to the vault"

No, the only thing you are guaranteed to have in one year's time is an auto-renewal of your subscription thanks to your credit cards details behind held while it's active. EA have promised absolutely nothing concrete beyond the 4 games, you and other subscribers are going on blind faith and that alone.

That's entirely your call, of course. But other people look at EA for what they are and aren't so trusting for obvious reasons.

ps http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ele... £24 @ Amazon, it's only going to get cheaper thanks to Access, so maybe there is a silver lining.

[torchic]

absolutely. can't believe you're getting disagrees it's just like the Xbox One reveal all over again where everyone knew the policies were terrible apart from Xbox fans who decided to stick up for and defend those policies.

Xbox fans need to realise that yes in the short term it's great but if they support this shit in their droves then everyone will get screwed over.

[Death]

Since Sony removed the choice for Plus and mandated it on the PS4, what game has justified the cost? It's been close to one year, please explain how PS4 owners got their value from the service. With EA Access you know up front the offerings they have. With the 4 games available today, you can't see the value but can see the value for $50 worth of indie shovelware?

The bottom line is PS fans are worried they will be stuck with nothing but indies as publishers opt out of PS+.

The future of Playstation is PSNow which is a much scarier place than EA Access.

[TimeSkipLuffy]

If EA games still appear in PS+ and are not excluded then there is no reason to have a sub-subscription. We may get the games later than EA access but by the time they are available the vault games are already old anyway.

I probably check EA access out on my X1 so it won't get dusty next to my PS4 :D
BUT I'm still curious if EA access is there to stay. The website clearly states that the service can be shut down at any time (with prior notice of course)

After a year we will see how many titles have been added to the vault. And we see how many EA titles have been added to PS+ if they continue to do so. Then we can say if it worth the extra money.

[OrangePowerz]

There you go the value of EA access already showing it's ugly side. No NFL Demo and the only way to try before buy is by having EA access.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

[marlinfan10]

they're giving people incentive to purchase their brand new service, relax buddy. fifa 15 demos are still being handed out to people outside of ea access, you don't mention that though.

[OrangePowerz]

Other games get demos for now, I wouldn't count on it that they will in the future. Pre order DLC was originally an incentive and now every retailer has different DLC. EA gave us the online pass and all their games have microtransactions. They also butchered SimCity, Dead Space and Dungeon Keeper. They are the last comoany I would trust with anything. Like I said it when they announced the program there will be unknown factors with EA access that will be bad. That's now only the start, first it's an incentive to get EA access next it will be standard and basically all demos will be paid demos because they won't release them to non EA access users. Who knows what else they have planned for the future that will be negative for non EA access users.

[DarkOcelet]

I will wait to see how this pans out , i mean it seems the only way to access Ea game demoes will be by this service which is a bad move . Whats next .

[ltachiUchiha]

The way I look at it for Sony it makes alot of sense to reject it obviously because of ps now & plus u gotta remember Sony will eventually give out games like Battlefield 4 for free down the line to plus members but im sure EA does not want that & would rather have ppl pay something to play their games then give it out for free on ps plus. Also for those saying u dont need XBL to play Battlefield 4 or any other EA game that supports online, if the user wants to play those games online, they would have to have xbl to do so. I think it looks good and all but just imagining if every 3rd party dev did this, I can only imagine how much money gamers would lose from this & this would kill off gamestop & there goes the 1st step to games becoming all digital & streaming service.

Basically if EA's service is a success u mightest well have just let MS get away with what they were trying to do in the 1st place. Remember EA was hoping for gamers to accept MS's is plan to get rid of used games being traded back in.

[ltachiUchiha]

Its like MS plan A & B didn't work but found a loophole to still EVENTUALLY still be on track to get everyone to take the bait & u just opened a backdoor to let plan A & B be a success despite its rough start.

Also the real reason for EA &MS with the Exclusive deal was as I said in my 1st post, EA was hoping gamers would accept MS's plan to get rid of used games. I truelly believe this is why Sony rejected them & is why EA is still fighting hard to get MS's plan to go through. If it doesn't work with XB1 sales being #1 then EA's plan B is this service.

[Keltech]

Well said itachi. There a reason ea got rid of the online pass a few months before the xbox Juan reveal. These two companies had a deal and u can tell by the games and dlc that came out early on xbox. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

[Death]

This isn't an exclusive deal between Microsoft and EA, Sony refused to give Playstation owners the choice because they didn't see the value in a subscription service that gave gamers access to a library of games that were accessable as long as you were a subscriber.

[imt558]

If EA Access succeed, Activision, Blizzard ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum... ) will follow and WE ARE SCREWED!!!

[Lev1903]

DAMN, then dont dont subscribe.

[Spotie]

And how will that stop all the shortsighted individuals who can't see how detrimental thus is from making EA and other publishers think this is a good thing?

Voting with your wallet doesn't work when you're overridden by less informed but larger numbers.

[1nsomniac]

EA have already shown that they're going to remove demos unles you sign up for subscription. So just like everyone with any common sense assumed, this will be abused by EA. Microsoft enabled this probably because it's the same work ethic that they stand by.

Sony made the right choice, I would imagine this means EA will shoot themselves in the foot even more & they will not release any demos at all on PSN. Even if they don't it's still a good call by Sony to protect its customers as I don't want every other developer jumping on the bandwagon.

[Death]

Sony is a developer and a publisher. They also have a subscription service that offers perks and benefits along with games to play while subscribing. Are you boycotting them too?

[Maxor]

I would take EA Access in a heart beat because the value I'm getting from the PS4 PS+ is trash. I have zero interest in the crappy indie games that Sony is pushing but if I can get Madden or BF 4 for cheap, count me in. Sony is only doing this protect their slack ass, nothing more.

[dodgemoose]

What worries me about this service is that all the other publishers will follow suit if it's successful and eventually we'll find ourselves in a situation where content or even full games are locked away from those unwilling to subscribe.

[1nsomniac]

This is exactly the problem & has happened on every single occasion. Whether it be from introducing digital or introducing paid DLC. It's always tested out first & then abused by every other developer/publisher until everybody is sick of it but no one pays attention to how it started so don't see it when it's happening again.

[DarXyde]

It's business, people. PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now are services Sony is trying to push and a third service would be like paying for Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Instant (I actually do have all three, but for different reasons). There's still no confirmation that PlayStation Now titles online require PlayStation Plus, but we do know that EA Access requires XBOX Live Gold for online multiplayer. I hear you guys on choice, but maybe Sony didn't want to impose EA Access with PlayStation Plus for online multiplayer? I mean, it's possible.

@Maxor

You're telling me that this year so far, you haven't gotten your $50 worth on PlayStation Plus? That's pretty hard to believe. Indies aside, you're telling me Dead Space 3, BioShock Infinite, Puppeteer, Batman: Arkham City, Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, Dragon's Crown, and Sly Cooper are not quality titles? The general consensus would like to have a word with you... Besides, if you're just going to blow off indies without trying them, that's your problem. If they're free and you're not taking advantage of the offering, I'd say that's a poor choice on your part. Thomas Was Alone, Hotline Miami, and Limbo are all great games.

[Death]

PS+ has been a great value for the PS3 and Vita/PSP. If you are new to the service and a PS4 owner where is the value? The service is much better when it is optional and has to offer something compelling for people to subscribe. It's been close to a year and PS4 owners need to resubscribe soon. Outside of online play what are they getting?

[DarXyde]

Well first off, if you're new to the service and don't own a Vita or PS3, you're willingly acknowledging that you will not be taking full advantage of the service, wouldn't you say?

Second, PS4 can't just give away a ton of free games yet. It's obviously not in the position to do so right now. Drive Club will have a free edition on PlayStation Plus when it launches, which I'd say is still pretty great. I hope people are being fair and complaining about XBOX One's Games With Gold this much.

[Death]

Is Games with Gold a rental service or subscription game service? Live has been presented the same way since its inception. If you want to play online on your Xbox you need to subscribe. Games with Gold is relatively new to the service and at no additional cost.

Plus was presented as an optional game subscription service by Sony with the PS3. As long as you subscribed you had access to the games you downloaded while a subscriber. EA Access game Vault is giving you access to a set library of games, not limiting you to games available when you subscribed. It's EA's version of PS+ at a lower subscription cost, but with games by EA only. How Sony can say they can't see the value is absurd when compared to Sony's offering on the PS4.

As for being fair about GWG vs Plus, let's look at both objectively. Coming into this gen, Live has always been required to play online. Games with Gold were given out at the end of last gen at no additional cost to subscribers. It's an added benefit to a service that was already established. On the Sony side, Plus became a requirement if you wanted to play online on your PS4. The option was taken away at the time we all knew the available games would be lacking. The choice was taken away from Sony's loyal customers. Now with EA Access Sony removed choice once again. You will pay for Sony's service and no one elses. At the same time Sony's PSNow "beta" was released at pricing that has universally been hailed as too high.

And here we are with Sony's most loyal customers complaining about an OPTIONAL service on a competing platform that was turned down by Sony. You would think they would be asking to have choice back, but that has clearly been something Sony fans do not want. They are more concerned with eliminating choices on a platform they don't own.

[Lucreto]

It will be on PS4 beforethe next Mass Effect in early 2016.

[user367272]

I think it is a mistake from sony with giving players on that platform less option. I will definitely get it on my xb1. $20 for a year...that is a great deal.

[cgrimm76]

30 dollars usd I think its a great deal If you l

[kingboy]

Would rather them invest in new IP's than paying EA x sums of cash for some so call exclusive access,but hey that's just my two cents.

[Death]

1. It's not exclusive.
2. Why would you think Microsoft paid for this?

Sony is refusing to let EA Access on PSN. It's a competing service to PS+ and to a degree PSNow. It will be very hard to sell Madden for $2.99 for 4 hours when you can get it on EA Access as part of your $29 subscription and play all you want. Sony is clearly looking out for Sony and the faithfull are doing what they always do. Thankfully PSNow is only a beta and people aren't actually paying for it. Lot's of value there. Sony can see the value in paying $1 an hour to play an older title, but not $29 a year for multiple titles. They are in charge of deciding value since their loyal customers can't. Microsoft is screwing people again by letting them decide on how they perceive value.

[budd]

this is way EA STOP putting there games on wii u because BIG N said no full controll of wii u console.. bs origin aka ea access subscription service ,,,

[cgrimm76]

I look at it differently. I look at it as a rental service. just with older games. since there is no options to rent xbox one games where I live other then gamefly this is as good as a option as i get. I am enjoying playing madden 25 and battlefield 4. yes there processors are coming out in a month or two but in the long run its a good deal

[ltachiUchiha]

Dont get me wrong, if we were just talking about EA & this service it looks pretty good but this is EA's "1st Step" to getting rid of used games. If it succeeds what do u think every other 3rd party & even 2nd party devs will do? They will follow suit because obviously they all want $$$.

I know we all want the best for our systems but what happens when gamestop goes out of business & everything goes digital & streaming? There goes our BIGGEST CHOICE out the window. No more physical copies & u cant buy used games for cheap & u cant trade no games back to grab a new game. Ppl may hate gamestop but gamestop actually keeps a good balance in the gaming industry & without gamestop our digital games have no value so gamestop is important especially for GAMERS.

feraldrgn

Thats exactly whats going to happen.

[Onenyte]

soon EA and Activision will be double dipping into gamers for there cash so they can have the "choice".

[feraldrgn]

If this takes off, I hope the other pubs don't do the same & start locking demos exclusively behind their service, or requiring an additional account with banking information.

[schnodder]

i bet EA will cut off content from games to make people subscribe to Access to get "the full experience".

[ocelot07]

No I don't think it was the right call. Even though on paper EA access does not look at that great but still ok I suppose. But I prob would not subscribe to it right away. But I would of liked the choice to say yes or no Sony!

[mochachino]

NO

[HacSawJimThugin]

For $29.99, I played 4 games that I have never played before with more to come. This deal is excellent for gamers like me. The only Battlefield I've ever played is Bad Company. I haven't played Madden since 2007 or 8. Peggle I've never played, same goes for FIFA. So basically I got 4 new games for $29.99. I love it.