By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony: EA Access Doesn't "Represent Good Value To The PlayStation Gamer"

BMaker11 said:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191966/playstation_plus_good_for_.php

"The revenue was worthwile", "I'd categorize it as a 'nice boost'", "free promotions build a fan base", "receiving great PR and gamer feedback", "going free in the later parts of the game's life cycle can give you a nice revenue boost", etc. etc. etc.

I'm seeing no negatives here.

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/08/28/futurlab-explains-how-sony-approaches-companies-to-put-their-game-free-on-playstation-plus-instant-game-collection/

For publisher side commentary

http://www.vg247.com/2013/10/03/sony-confirms-they-pay-devs-cash-to-include-their-games-in-ps/

Sony straight up paying them cash.

I can see it's worthwile for smaller devs and smaller games.. but for a company like EA?

"From a PR and goodwill standpoint, [it's] most definitively worthwhile,"

"For us, yeah, the revenue was worthwhile," said Glaiel. "[Subscription models] are not a replacement for selling games traditionally -- Humble Bundle isn't either -- but it's super awesome Sony is doing this, because it absolutely helps in the end," he said.

don't think thats good enough for EA





 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Around the Network

a new subscription for a 4-5 games not the newones ,who will pay for sometimes like that ,, and the worse thing EA ,it EA ,gggg lol .



NiKKoM said:

I know how it works but I don't think the price for the publishers is right.. looking at the games offered the last few months.. its a bit down in quality from when it started. could be a sign that Sony is offering less money or it's not worth it.. (funny thing that there are a lot of EA games in Europe in PS+)

its the transition from last gen to current gen. as i said in the previous post after the game sells they usually go for this deal. but with the transition these game sales arent so front loaded as usual. so they are waiting for them to sell before they offer them on PS+. thats of course my own personal conclusion. we are still getting good games on PS3 for example. 



U won't get the new fifa for three. U will get last year edition.



NiKKoM said:
bananaking21 said:


or it was actually generating a lot of money and EA wanted a slice of the pie? 

the concept is simple. Sony offers some money for a game. an example would be 5 million to rockstar for RDR. by that point RDR was already profitable and sales werent all that much. so, they take the 5 million, which is free money, they also get the chance to sell more DLC since a lot of people are exposed to the game, and its free marketing. in the grand scheme of things sony only pays 5 million form the hunders they make from PS+. 

Rockstar gets free money, plus their game is marketed, and they are certainly going to sell more DLC.

Sony gets the big game, pays a small amount from the total they get PS+. and can manage to get much more games on it too. and they get the 50$ a year

the consumer gets the games, many of them. and pay 50$ a year for them all. 

I know how it works but I don't think the price for the publishers is right.. looking at the games offered the last few months.. its a bit down in quality from when it started. could be a sign that Sony is offering less money or it's not worth it.. (funny thing that there are a lot of EA games in Europe in PS+)


on ps3 sony was offering games that were old.  games that most people already owned.   you'd get an occasional title day 1 but those were few and far between.   so far,. every game on ps4's ps+ has been brand new except towerfall i think.   for the first year you really have to offer brand new games.  i mean,.. it's like that there is a back catalog to even pull from.

i don't think sony can afford to get a brand new game like wolfenstein.  that would be too expensive.   now after that game has been out for a year than yeah,.. wolfenstein is probably an option.   i'm quite sure ps+ games will include many more old AAA once old AAA games exist on the platform just like they did on ps3.

and i mean,. compare ps+ to xbox one gwg's offering.  not only was it late to the party it's games are even worse.   ..i mean,. maybe not to you.  i know how you like smartphone games but the rest of us have lesser opinions of that kind of game.



Around the Network

So I guess sony has the power to speak for all ps4 owners now. Sony just sounds salty right now, they should have just released a professional statement, instead of this rile up the fanbase type of statement (that technically is backfiring).



Seems like after Xbox one DRM fiasco, as rumored suggest EA had huge role to play, which Sony played the spoil sport in the end. MS and EA sat down and came up new way of stealthily bringing it back... But i honestly don't see any value in this subscription, $5 a month for last years/annualized games, games which people prefer to buy the latest iteration, and get a discount on it. No thank you. Its good that Sony is not supporting such trend.. next thing will have other publisher queue up..Good Move Sony



taus90 said:
Seems like after Xbox one DRM fiasco, as rumored suggest EA had huge role to play, which Sony played the spoil sport in the end. MS and EA sat down and came up new way of stealthily bringing it back... But i honestly don't see any value in this subscription, $5 a month for last years/annualized games, games which people prefer to buy the latest iteration, and get a discount on it. No thank you. Its good that Sony is not supporting such trend.. next thing will have other publisher queue up..Good Move Sony


100%



kitler53 said:


on ps3 sony was offering games that were old.  games that most people already owned.   you'd get an occasional title day 1 but those were few and far between.   so far,. every game on ps4's ps+ has been brand new except towerfall i think.   for the first year you really have to offer brand new games.  i mean,.. it's like that there is a back catalog to even pull from.

i don't think sony can afford to get a brand new game like wolfenstein.  that would be too expensive.   now after that game has been out for a year than yeah,.. wolfenstein is probably an option.   i'm quite sure ps+ games will include many more old AAA once old AAA games exist on the platform just like they did on ps3.

and i mean,. compare ps+ to xbox one gwg's offering.  not only was it late to the party it's games are even worse.   ..i mean,. maybe not to you.  i know how you like smartphone games but the rest of us have lesser opinions of that kind of game.

haha.. I actually don't really care which games they offer.. but its interessting why this step has been taken by EA. Is it their greed.. is it Sony's greed not paying enough (anymore) for PS+ games, maybe there is a patern, or stuff changed when Sony switched to PS+ support for all 3 consoles.. maybe forcing publishers to have game available to all the systems they have.. it's not like EA did this cause it was a brainfart..



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

BMaker11 said:

Guess you didn't read the following where I said PS+ only being there to play online = not good value to PS gamers.

And I guess Grid 2, Borderlands 2, Bioshock Infinite, DmC, Metro Last Light, Payday 2, Tomb Raider, Remember Me, Arkham City, PES 2014, NBA2K14 (and that's just off the top of my head, PS3 only) are games people, presumably, don't want to play? And the publishers didn't get any money from these games being on IGC, that people didn't want to play? Not like they don't also have DLC which goes directly into their pockets, as well.

I don't see what you're getting at. But if you think opening the flood gates like that is a good thing, I guess that's just a difference of opinion. The trial, discounts, and free games will be ripped from PS+/GwG and put on a publisher by publisher subscription service. So you'll be paying $30 if you want EA stuff, $30 if you want Activision stuff, etc. instead of having some uniformity. But I guess spending more and more is a good thing =/

You might find this hard to believe, but there are people have little or no interest in the games you mentioned. EA Access can offer different games for a different audience.

You're concerned about EA Access being an additional subscription. But its just an option for people to get games from a publisher they enjoy.

PS+ is just a few games a month now and there is no guarantee subscribers will get the games they want. With EA Access, people are subscribing because they want access to library from EA.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)