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"

BillyBong on 30 July 2014
jlmurph2 said:
BillyBong said:
jlmurph2 said:
BillyBong said:

why do people still complain about this?  the pricing hasn't yet been set nor is the service even available yet.  beta is still messing with different pricing models.  you're pitting an argument on a placeholder price vs something that's already set and fixed..


What kind of beta robs it's testers?

a tester who wanted to play a last gen game on their new gen console?  what would you pay to be able to play your 360 games on your x1? 

I damn sure wouldn't pay $5 for a 4 hour demo

nor would I.. but who's to say that someone who didn't own a ps3 console or will not be owning and ps4, yet still has the option to play it if they had a capable device wouldn't?  Just saying.. things are subject to change when PSNOW goes live.. we'll see what Sony decides to settle with.. they'll need to be prepared for the community backlash if the pricing holds..



Man.. I hate it when your girl has to leave my place to come back to you..

Around the Network
Richard_Feynman on 30 July 2014
Intrinsic said:
Richard_Feynman said:
EA Access is a huge bonus to XBone owners imo.

If I could pay $30 per year just for the new Fifa and a few other games then I'd take that in a heartbeat. It sucks that EA is skipping the PS4 with this, but I think it'll come somewhere down the line.

I think you misunderstand how EA acces works. You don't get the new games as part of the package. What you get is a backlog of EA games and discounts on every new purchase you make, be it games, dlc or even in game currency.

I am happy sony skipped on this, cause this is EA being EA. I give them points for trying, but all this really does is further fragment and already fragmented market. So what if activision decideds to do this, then 2K, then ubisoft. Before you know it we have gamers paying for upwards of 7 different subscriptions services. Why not just make whatever initiative hey are trying to do be part of PS+ and work out a deal with sony instead.

If you are a gamer that will only really buy EA games then fine, I just don't see how this is pro consumer at the end of the day.

They are offering Fifa 14 on there, and, as of now, it is still the latest offering. I am a "mellow" Fifa fan so even if it comes later (every year) then it'll hold tremendous value for me. Not to mention that  I'd, presumably, get to try NHL/NFL/NBA - which I've never really done due to a low interest in those games. Nevertheless, it will be a very novel experience to play all of those. What to mention of other games.

In short, I don't ever buy the new Fifa straight away, I usually buy 1 or 2 of them per gen, so this deal is very eye-catching indeed.



BillyBong on 30 July 2014
Ka-pi96 said:
ErwinMoC said:

There was nothing wrong with the $599 price tag and people who still say that have no idea what was inside the PS3.


To justify that price... hmm gold bricks?


lol.. blu-ray player?  multi-card reader?  rechargeable wireless controllers?  backward capability? 

Mind you that blu-ray players in 2006 avg. $500 bucks at the time..



Man.. I hate it when your girl has to leave my place to come back to you..

overman1 on 30 July 2014

While I belive there is a need for Options regarding EA access on the PS4, I believe this is very bad and could come back to hurt the cusomers later on. Lets say this works, what is to stop Activision, or Ubisoft or any other publishers from doing this? How many subscriptions would the average gamer have to pay in order to get the "best deals"?



gooch_destroyer on 30 July 2014

In hindsight, this might not be such a bad thing.



Around the Network
ErwinMoC on 30 July 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
ErwinMoC said:
Mr Puggsly said:
bananaking21 said:


i guess choices now are a good thing eh? didnt see you fighting the good fight back in the day when Kinect was mandetory. in fact, you were all in for it. wonder why. 


We were all in for Kinect being mandatory like all Sony fans were in for a $599 PS3.

Over time, that problem got fixed.


There was nothing wrong with the $599 price tag and people who still say that have no idea what was inside the PS3.


It didn't matter what was inside the PS3. The price tag was ridiculous for a game console with visuals at par with the 360.

This is why the PS3 didn't thrive until they fixed that problem.

Funny, you clearly have not played the PS3 exclusives, also it was the best and the cheapest blu-ray player.



jlmurph2 on 30 July 2014
overman1 said:

While I belive there is a need for Options regarding EA access on the PS4, I believe this is very bad and could come back to hurt the cusomers later on. Lets say this works, what is to stop Activision, or Ubisoft or any other publishers from doing this? How many subscriptions would the average gamer have to pay in order to get the "best deals"?

If its an option then by all means, let them. Id rather give my money to the publishers than Gamestop.



cpg716 on 30 July 2014
BillyBong said:

I am just talking about VALUE.  Actually. Both services are in BETA.. So nothing is set in stone. But the fact is .. RIGHT NOW at this very moment a better VALUE option is EA Access.

While PS Now is in BETA it will CHARGE me those prices to use the service right now.  All I was talking about is VALUE.

I am not even comparing the two services. As they are TWO very different things. Just the VALUE of it all. As that was what SONY responded with. That it did not offer "VALUE for gamers". 

how is that value when you are paying to play a limited amount of new gen games only from EA and they are not even new titles, mind you?  PsNow will be offering a catalog of older games now playable on new gen.. and not just on your ps4 but other Sony devices.. that's quite a value for those who didn't have a ps3/ps2 all last gen.. or for those who won't be buying a new gen console at all, but would still love to play those games.  there's a difference in what they both are offering.

How is it value? Because if you did not purchase these games each of them would ALONE cost $15-$45 even USED. Even if it was just these 4 games the WHOLE year and you purchased them for $15 each.. that is $60. HALF of the $30/yr price. They said they will be adding more titles to the vault, so the value will inscrease. Also .. You get 10% off all EA games..  buy 3 games.. that saved you $18..      there any many ways this offers VALUE and it only increases. If you purchased the games then yes.. you do lose some value. 

 

PS Now. So..  While there is VALUE in it..   You are going to be paying again to play games you may have purchased already. The only benefit is you can play these games on your new PS4.. In what will NOT be as good of an experience as if you played it on your PS3. Did you throw away your PS3 when you purchased the PS4? Mine sit right next to eachother.  So to then try a game I didn't play on my PS3 or buy before..  it costs $4.99 for 4 hours.    Also you brought up the other devices.. each has issues dealing with PS Now.. (Tablets, PS Vita, Sony TVs). We have yet to see the service up and running on anything besides a PS4 and PS3.   I see VALUE in PS Now as a subscribtion service. Not saying the hourly prices shouldnt be an option for those who dont want a monthly fee, but unless there is a subscroption option then the value proposition is very low. Much easier to just play on my PS3.  I love the idea of all PS Now can do. Just needs a better pricing structure. I feel the EA Access pricing stucture is very fair.. and offered better value currently.

EA Access option is to pay more money to buy these games used, not get discounts on titles and DLC, and not early access to new titles.   If EA titles (year old ones) don't interest you.. then sure.. no value..     but at least in general for a gamer who plays these titles, there is a huge value proposition with EA Access.

 



XBLive: cpg716     PSN ID: cpg716  Steam: Luv4Tech77

Predictions on 12/01/15 - Generation 8 Totals:

PS4: 85-95m
X1: 55-65m
WiiU: 20-30m

BillyBong on 30 July 2014
ErwinMoC said:
Mr Puggsly said:


It didn't matter what was inside the PS3. The price tag was ridiculous for a game console with visuals at par with the 360.

This is why the PS3 didn't thrive until they fixed that problem.

Funny, you clearly have not played the PS3 exclusives, also it was the best and the cheapest blu-ray player.


ikr?  funny.. my buddy still has the HDDVD attachment he bought for his 360 banking that that was the future..


This posted edited for quote tree length. - Viper.



Man.. I hate it when your girl has to leave my place to come back to you..

Richard_Feynman on 30 July 2014
Intrinsic said:

I am sorry, I would rather pay $50 and get "games and discounts" from every publisher as it is now rather than pay on a publisher by publishr basis. Cause if this thing takes off, next thing you know ubisoft has theirs, activision, take 2...etc. Before you know what more and more vlue will be leveraged behind these "services" to the point where not paying for it would seem stupid......

So no, down the road I don't see how this is good value. I don't see why adding yet another service to do something that a service is already in place to do is a good thing especially when it reduces the value of the already existing service. Be it PS+ or XBL. 


I would really not mind paying $30 x 4 = $120 per year and have them competing in the value stakes. That, to me, sounds like a situation wherein I'll have constant access to a wide variety of great games. Moreover, I'll be able to try out things I'd have never managed to convince myself to pay for outright.

That's not a lot of money. And you can still go buy physical games anyway.

I don't like Xbone (or MS for that matter), but I see this as a good proposal at the  very least.

Of course it might get stuffed up somehow - the jury is out.