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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Sony pulled a fast one on most of the gaming community including Microsoft

Hynad said:

If it wasn't a Sony bashing thread, you'd try to be objective and come up with reason both negative AND positive for Sony to turn EA away.

I'll reiterate some reasons, just to balance your one/narrow minded view on this:

I- Firstly it obviously competes with and potentially devalues ps+ (you'd have to think EA games would be less likely to become available to plus, or potentially they could be even more outdated versions of the sports titles).

II- End user support. For the tiny fraction of the fee Sony would receive, they'd be expected to manage the purchase and delivery as with any digital purchase, but the fact that it's not just a single transaction for a single item and rather the support of a yearly or monthly subscription service, opens the door to many more potential issues.
Sony would be the first point of call for end user support when anything went wrong (and with ea/origin on top of ps+, that might not be trivial). Reading the many threads on GAF, I'm sure Sony's CS support lines are busy enough as is regarding the various issues that are thrown up with with their own ps+ without generating more with an extra layer of potential pitfalls on top. There would no doubt be grey areas - problems where Sony think it's an EA issue, EA think it's a Sony issue. Not appetising.

III- It's not just EA - you have to think further ahead. Other publishers are likely to expect to be able to be given the chance to offer a competing (but maybe not even necessarily that similar) service for their own titles. This would not only multiply the effects of the above concerns but, thinking it through a bit more, you'd have to factor in each publisher's competing service's rules, regulations and nuances... and you are now presenting an even more complex problem for Sony CS.

Taking this further, it's not difficult to imagine the potential for a sea of confusion customer-side when Johnny Gamer expects certain things of one service that is actually only a part of a rival service he also subscribes to. This would only compound with every new service added. All customers would go directly to Sony to air their grievances and have their minds set at ease. Those CS staff are going to spend the next few years in and out of training courses like an mcse.

IV- Having to set up an auto-renewal with a credit card held on file. Sony don't really want to go there, do they? And that Johnny Gamer guy - what if he forgets to cancel and the service auto-renews - Sony CS have to deal with enough "my dog bought COD Ghosts when it scratched its arse on my DS4 help me please!" kind of gripes as it is.

So, you summize that Sony wasn't going to get enough of the $$$ in the deal for it to be worth it(processing issues).  That was one of the ideas that has been floated out there.  I even mention that I originally thought they just couldn't get the right deal from EA money wise.  But, I don't think it is a customer service issue.

It is a Money issue.  It's a give the control to the publisher issue.  Which goes back to my point.  Sony gets all of the money from it's services and a much smaller share of a program like EA's. 

My point is that SOny didn't do it to "protect the gamer" as they said.  They did it to make more money.  I actually applaud them for doing it, just not their explanation.



It is near the end of the end....

Around the Network

you dont' know what DRM is do you...



Xbox fan creating a thread about Sony and DRM? Incoming 100+ posts...



The Fury said:
Little confused, I see no DRM here that would be in the same ball park as what you mention, DRM for digital downloads or streaming (the latter is content you never own) is not the same as a disc. A nice theory.

The disc is what Sony conceded on.  They knew that consumers and even their own systems weren't prepared to go all DRM all the time.  So, they went with the approrach that they were thinking of the consumer by not forcing DRM.  A great story and as it turns out, a GREAT sales pitch.  Meanwhile, they work slowly to ensure that there is no competition to their service on the dominant selling system.  By default, they have created DRM.  If 2/3 of the market is on your system and must go through your system only to get the content, then they have most of the control and the gamers and publishers have none or very little.

It was just a brilliant play on people emotions to have physical media.



It is near the end of the end....

kitler53 said:
you dont' know what DRM is do you...

You got me, it is something that only you know the answer to...

DRM is control.  Nothing else.  If you think otherwise, please explain how it's not.



It is near the end of the end....

Around the Network

I think Sony is better off working on other features, than trying to build in support for how EA Access would integrate and work with PSN. If EA Access becomes a popular differentiator being on XBO and not PS4, then Sony will change their mind and let EA integrate in EA Access.

For now, they are better off just waiting to see how it turns out. I personally think EA Access is a poor choice, just as PS-Now rentals are in many cases poor choices (if you already have PS3).



Blood_Tears said:
Xbox fan creating a thread about Sony and DRM? Incoming 100+ posts...

Ahh, that's a good one.  Only, I have owned every Sony system up to the PS3 and have every intention of getting a PS4 within the next year.  I don't have to be a blind XBOT to have an opinion that Sony is smarter than most people give them credit for.  Giving customers what they want(no DRM) is easy.  Giving them what they don't want (DRM) and having them thank you for it is brilliant!



It is near the end of the end....

kitler53 said:
you dont' know what DRM is do you...


Using DRM in referring to PS Now and PS Plus is correct.  No different then when it is used to referring to NetFlix. 

 

Streaming content can only be played through PS Now. It fits with the below definition. Sony controls where and when you can play on PS Now.

One definition: 

Digital Restrictions Management is the practice of imposing technological restrictions that control what users can do with digital media. When a program is designed to prevent you from copying or sharing a song, reading an ebook on another device, or playing a single-player game without an Internet connection, you are being restricted by DRM.



XBLive: cpg716     PSN ID: cpg716  Steam: Luv4Tech77

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

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

Landguy said:
The Fury said:
Little confused, I see no DRM here that would be in the same ball park as what you mention, DRM for digital downloads or streaming (the latter is content you never own) is not the same as a disc. A nice theory.

The disc is what Sony conceded on.  They knew that consumers and even their own systems weren't prepared to go all DRM all the time.  So, they went with the approrach that they were thinking of the consumer by not forcing DRM.  A great story and as it turns out, a GREAT sales pitch.  Meanwhile, they work slowly to ensure that there is no competition to their service on the dominant selling system.  By default, they have created DRM.  If 2/3 of the market is on your system and must go through your system only to get the content, then they have most of the control and the gamers and publishers have none or very little.

It was just a brilliant play on people emotions to have physical media.


DRM literally stands for digital rights management.  DRM is the how, where, and when a consumer can use the digital content they purchase.  DRM is the details like how a digitally purchased game on psn can be downloaded to 1 ps4 to be played by any account.  DRM is the details like how a digitally purchased game can be played on any ps4 so long as the purchaser account is logged into to psn.  DRM is details like cross-buy that allows some games to be played on ps4, ps3, or psvita. 

DRM is not a lack of choice purchase options.  the word you are looking for is monopoly

 



Landguy said:

This isn't a bashing on Sony, but rather a compliment.

 

I too had fallen for some of the “Sony wants to cater to the gamer more” theories.  After E3 last year, it seems that they had really managed to show Microsoft that the gaming community was not interested in DRM or Digital Only ownership (or Kinect in the box it seems).  The gaming community rejoiced that Sony had saved them from the evils that Microsoft had intended.

 I myself was more in the middle.  I liked some aspects of it and also hated others.  But, I did recognize that it was more of an obvious direction of the future than anything else.  If you have any investment in the Apple ecosystem, Microsoft’s plan was a big step up from that.

As we all know, a little over a year later, we sit here today and the consumers have spoken with their wallets.  The PS4 is clearly their system of choice and Microsoft has 180’d themselves to the point that their eyes can’t stop spinning in their head.

This is where when we have finally learned that we have all been duped.

When Sony turned down the EA Access package, I could have just assumed that they simply didn’t like the cost model EA had proposed or some other business reason.  But when Sony announced that they had decided for all of us that it was a bad deal and that they did it to protect us, I knew something was wrong. One thing to remember is that gamers don’t have to pay for the EA program to play EA games, it is an option of theirs if they want it.

Sony allows Netflix and other such services, why not a gaming related one on a gaming system?

The reason is too obvious of course.  They didn’t want publisher DRM, because they wanted their own Sony DRM instead.  They want complete control of the pie.  Sony wants to decide who gets paid and how much.  Based on the future of PS Now, they will control the whole pie.  If a publisher doesn’t want to go through Sony’s store and pay what Sony wants, then go to retail and pay what they want and all of the costs of distribution.  Had Sony accepted the EA program, they would have gotten only a small fraction of the $2.50 per month that EA was collecting.  Also, they would have had EA selling their digital product direct to the consumer and further reducing their cut/control.  Sony also knew that soon enough, almost all of the publishers of any size would have their own “store within a store”.  All control over the bigger publishers would be lost.  Microsoft wanted the same thing, but they were dumb enough to tell us up front.

I am very proud of the fact that Sony has pulled of one of the most amazing marketing tricks.  They managed to convince almost all of the gamers and most of the media that they were not implementing DRM because they wanted to protect the gamers.  They rode that wave to a huge lead in introducing a new console.  Meanwhile, they are working real hard to ensure that now that they have a market advantage in console sales, they will have complete control of the inevitable digital future. 

Don’t blame Sony, they just copied Apples business model.  Apple said all of the same things 10 years ago when they were convincing us to go all digital with our music.  I just can’t believe we all fell for it AGAIN!

Source = ME

Nice post was also what I was thinking.

I mean "thats not good for our consumers" but then having an arbitrary fee for online gaming even tho they were the oned that decided "player hosted servers as on PC? nah fuck  that". They decided on their own that they only want official servers.

If you want something that is good for the customers dont say "one of our biggest mistakes last gen was making PSN free". Also let people play with their friends for free (on player hosted servers) and let people that care about rankings/competitions pay the fee if they want to.

Its a "protect Sony's interest" thing not a "protect our valuble customers" thing. it is somewhat a threat to PS+ And at the same time this might damage the relation with EA (having less games is a good thing for the customers right?)