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

Forums - Sony Discussion - EA Access subscription service coming to PS4

vivster said:
RolStoppable said:
Sounds like good value to me.

So sad nobody got this one. Just to educate the pleps:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-30-sony-says-ea-access-program-isnt-good-value

I assume this is another case where an evil company is suddenly not evil anymore because a console manufacturer is now dealing with them.

Yea. Just like CrissCrossPlay Sony desperately longed for. Not the ConsumerConsumerConsumer MoreForBuck screaching CheaperCreepers.



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
thismeintiel said:
Considering how against this Sony was in the beginning, and I can see why, they must have gotten something big in return. Either a higher percentage of the cut than MS or some exclusive content for next gen.

I would rather they kept being against, and not because of EA games since I don't care about them, but that next gen when things start over there is always possibility of more publishers going same way. Took some time to other studios to go streaming still today Netflix alone isn't enough anymore.

We basically had a cycle of high movie/series piracy, netflix, low movie piracy, multiple stream providers, high piracy. Because what made piracy go away was the low cost and easyness of getting all content on netflix, but with the plethora of services that is going away.

Let's see if Stadia, PSNow, MS effort and others streaming games and starting to make exclusives and other platforms follow if we will go to a worse situation.

Oh, I 100% agree. Now that this is on PS4 and most likely PS5, more publishers are going to want their own service on there, too. And they'll be withholding their games from Plus, as well as making what would have been a demo before, an early access hid behind a paywall.

People can only afford so much. Recently I had to cancel Hulu with Live TV and just switch to normal Hulu because all of these streaming sites are nuts to pay for. Now, I'm sticking with Netflix, Prime, and Hulu basic. Disney can kiss my ass if they think I'm subbing to their new one. People thought it was great that streaming was killing cable. But, because everyone wants their own, to get all of them is more expensive than cable.



The flaw with this fear that every publisher will want their own service, is that a majority of publishers don’t have the content to warrant a service. And if any of them were planning it, the logical testing ground would have been Xbone, not PS4. Not only was MS more open to it but with PS3 BC probably never happening, there is much less potential content there. But we didn’t see any... so this idea that the flood gates were going to open didn’t make sense four or five years ago and certainly doesn’t now.

And even when a couple other publishers start their own.... so what? If you aren’t interested, don’t subscribe. This isn’t something that will see exclusive content or anything. Games cost too much money for publishers to limit the audience.

And haha @ publishers holding games off of PS+ for their own service. PS+ and GwG this gen have been mostly small scale games and mostly doodoo with the rare gem thrown in. Sony doesn’t need to offer great value anymore since they charge for online. This won’t change until they stop charging for online.



Yes ludicrous, because 2 months after Netflix other companies opened their services, similar to PSNow... but it all leads to that.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

Looks as if it is a separate service on all platforms. I guess I can see why it make sense from both perspectives. Why couldn't it be one service across all platforms with one price, where each platform get's their cut and gamers simply get access to the EA games available to the platforms they play on? On the other hand, if that service needs to cost say $20 per month or $75 per year for multi platform, it makes sense to divide it all up and charge $5 for the month and $30 for the year per platform.

Still surprised there's little to no outrage by the cross platformers, but it would be directed towards EA and not PS or MS, unless they are a major part of the reason why the service is set up like that behind the scenes. We wouldn't find out either unless another Fortnite type controversy were to take place.

Almost all subscription services I can think of are platform agnostic and you pay for the subs itself. This is an odd and unwanted precedent.

It makes me think of CAA. You pay for a membership, a sub basically, they provide you with a service, and they don't care what type of vehicle you have. They offer different packages though so you can save if you don't travel as much or pay more if you do. It's a little surprising that EA being third party doesn't have a cross platform sub for a higher price. From a profit perspective it makes sense, because they are likely to make more money charging per platform, and the platforms themselves likely would make more profit by having it all locked to each platform. That doesn't really explain the lack of outrage though. I don't see this to be to much different than what happened with Fortnite, and yet no one really seems to care. I just find it quite odd that 'anti consumer' doesn't seem to apply at all times.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

Almost all subscription services I can think of are platform agnostic and you pay for the subs itself. This is an odd and unwanted precedent.

It makes me think of CAA. You pay for a membership, a sub basically, they provide you with a service, and they don't care what type of vehicle you have. They offer different packages though so you can save if you don't travel as much or pay more if you do. It's a little surprising that EA being third party doesn't have a cross platform sub for a higher price. From a profit perspective it makes sense, because they are likely to make more money charging per platform, and the platforms themselves likely would make more profit by having it all locked to each platform. That doesn't really explain the lack of outrage though. I don't see this to be to much different than what happened with Fortnite, and yet no one really seems to care. I just find it quite odd that 'anti consumer' doesn't seem to apply at all times.

I can understand that Netflix and EA Access are different type of service, and that is less likely for someone to have numerous different consoles than Netflix enabled products. So perhaps very few are worried that they will need more than one sub. Still it is strange that no outrage have been done.

But considering gamepass still have low sub number, EA Access also probably have low, it don't really affect many.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

It makes me think of CAA. You pay for a membership, a sub basically, they provide you with a service, and they don't care what type of vehicle you have. They offer different packages though so you can save if you don't travel as much or pay more if you do. It's a little surprising that EA being third party doesn't have a cross platform sub for a higher price. From a profit perspective it makes sense, because they are likely to make more money charging per platform, and the platforms themselves likely would make more profit by having it all locked to each platform. That doesn't really explain the lack of outrage though. I don't see this to be to much different than what happened with Fortnite, and yet no one really seems to care. I just find it quite odd that 'anti consumer' doesn't seem to apply at all times.

I can understand that Netflix and EA Access are different type of service, and that is less likely for someone to have numerous different consoles than Netflix enabled products. So perhaps very few are worried that they will need more than one sub. Still it is strange that no outrage have been done.

But considering gamepass still have low sub number, EA Access also probably have low, it don't really affect many.

Good point. If you compare all of EA's games over the past couple years or more vs just Fortnite there really is no comparison. From that perspective it makes sense why things have been fairly quiet. I'd also guess that EA games are played by an older audience on average, who better understand why cross play isn't a natural thing in the console industry, so little to no outrage should come of it. For now anyway. We'll see what happens if the service starts to take off and if 'anti consumer' outrage follows.



setsunatenshi said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
About time Sony wised up on this.

It is a good value if you’re into EA titles. Hell, any time you’re going to buy an EA title that costs $60, you save a dollar by buying a month of EA Access for $5 and then saving $6 on that title with the 10% discount.

except to save a dollar this month, most people will be spending 5 the next month for nothing, and the month after that, and so on until years later when they realize they added a new "rent" to their lives with very little to show for.

it's the same reason why I personally don't like the games pass model of business from Xbox, there's no incentive to make quality games if the customer is already paying a rent for them whether they are good or bad

Most revenue is still generated from selling the games, not subscription services. Therefore the quality is concern for selling games and getting people to stay subscribed.

Gamepass in particular also offers a curated selection of notable games. So maybe if you don't like a new game, you could find some other critically acclaimed game on the service.

EA Access gives about 6-10 hours of play on newly released games. That means you can try them pretty thoroughly before you commit $60.

You can downplay these services, but they're objectively pretty great even if they don't necessarily appeal to you. They're competitive services that offer more than I ever expected from these types of subscription services.



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)

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

Looks as if it is a separate service on all platforms. I guess I can see why it make sense from both perspectives. Why couldn't it be one service across all platforms with one price, where each platform get's their cut and gamers simply get access to the EA games available to the platforms they play on? On the other hand, if that service needs to cost say $20 per month or $75 per year for multi platform, it makes sense to divide it all up and charge $5 for the month and $30 for the year per platform.

Still surprised there's little to no outrage by the cross platformers, but it would be directed towards EA and not PS or MS, unless they are a major part of the reason why the service is set up like that behind the scenes. We wouldn't find out either unless another Fortnite type controversy were to take place.

Almost all subscription services I can think of are platform agnostic and you pay for the subs itself. This is an odd and unwanted precedent.

I think, the reason is, that every platform has wildly different games.

The PS4 only has PS4 EA games

XBO comes with XBO and 360 games (do also OG Xbox titles get released with the service?), making it's offering twice as large as on PS4.

PC has the whole EA PC history, including all the games from PC-only companies like Bullfrog, Maxis or Westwood they bought up. It probably has a range of at least about 3 times as many games as the other 2 combined due to this.

In other words, you'll get by far the most out of it on PC, and on PS4 it has the least value if it has the same pricetag across all platforms.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
DonFerrari said:

Almost all subscription services I can think of are platform agnostic and you pay for the subs itself. This is an odd and unwanted precedent.

I think, the reason is, that every platform has wildly different games.

The PS4 only has PS4 EA games

XBO comes with XBO and 360 games (do also OG Xbox titles get released with the service?), making it's offering twice as large as on PS4.

PC has the whole EA PC history, including all the games from PC-only companies like Bullfrog, Maxis or Westwood they bought up. It probably has a range of at least about 3 times as many games as the other 2 combined due to this.

In other words, you'll get by far the most out of it on PC, and on PS4 it has the least value if it has the same pricetag across all platforms.

Well it looks like it's the same price no matter the platform which makes no sense then. If some platforms have way more games on them, why the same price no matter the platform? They might as well have one higher price for cross platform access because it wouldn't be any different than it is now, minus assumed bundled savings. If each platform was priced based on how many games there were to play then it would make more sense.