Sony caused something of a hullabaloo recently when it said that EA Access – a subscription service similar to PlayStation Plus consisting solely of EA published titles – does not represent good value. The initiative – which is available now on the Xbox One – allows you to pay a monthly or annual fee in order to access a range of releases on a rental basis, as well as various other perks. So, why is the Japanese giant so eager to block it on the PlayStation 4 – and why won’t it allow us to make up our own mind?
“The thinking behind it is, we just do not look at one proposition, like EA Access,” Worldwide Studios president Shuhei Yoshida told Eurogamer.net. “We look at the whole offering of the titles or services on the platform, and we thought about the impact of having something like that as a new symptom. If every publisher follows suit, and as a consumer you have to choose by publisher which service to subscribe to, that's not something that we believe is best for consumers.”
He’s got a point: stumping up a few dollars a month for EA Access may not seem like much, but what happens when you have to juggle Activision Access, Ubisoft Access, and Bethesda Access as well? “We are not just looking at that one proposition,” Yoshida continued. “We were thinking about the impact that that might have for the future offering of products and services on PlayStation.” But that doesn’t mean that the idea’s off the table entirely.
“Nothing can be final,” he said. “It's not a technical matter; it's more of a business matter. I'm not directly involved as it's a third-party relations matter. But I'm sure that our third-party guys are talking with EA closely. And, also, we are listening to consumers as well. I'm the one who gets harsh comments. I have to give that feedback to my company, right? Otherwise I can't maintain my sanity. That sometimes annoys some of our members, but that's part of my job now.”
Would you like to see EA Access eventually make its way to the PS4, or do you share some of Yoshida’s concerns? Let us know in the comments section below.
[source eurogamer.net]
Comments 47
The only thing with EA access that confuses me somewhat is the amount of games/discounts. Unlike PlayStation Plus, EA can't possibly pump out a range of free game trials and discounts on a regular basis, can it? I mean, how long will it be before it's bringing up age-old titles? It looks decent right now thanks to the likes of being able to play FIFA 15 and Dragon Age early, etc. but what happens when it's not the holiday season and EA isn't publishing any games for months to come?
So Sony is just looking out for the little guy. What a wonderful corporation.
They don't want the competition and would rather have full control with services like PS+.
@Jazzer94
How dare you suggest that, it's obvious from Yoshida's statements that Sony is just looking out for our best interests. Glad I have them deciding for me what's good and what isn't.
@Gamer83 I can't tell if that's sarcasm? Internet is very difficult in detecting that.
@Punished_Boss
Not sarcastic at all, I worship at the shrine of corporate Lord Sony.
I'm sorry but I don't see what's the problem with every publisher offering its subscription services, I don't like most EA games except mass effect so I would not subscribe to an EA program, but if WB, Capcom or Square-Enix offered subscription programs I'll be happy to subscribe..... they are not taking away the option of buying games individually or forcing you to subscribe... subscribing only makes sense to you if you want multiple games from the same developer and don't care to wait 6 months or so after release to get them..... so I don't see why everyone seems to think a future where every developer has a program similar to EA access is a bad thing
@Gamer83 .........
@Gamer83 you'd rather subscribe to half a dozen publishers? Sony should apologise for running its business like a business I suppose. I guarantee that MS is now regretting their deal with EA.
@Gamer83 It's up to Sony what they want and don't want on their online store. I agree with them. Next Rovio will be offering a £5 month access to angry birds.
I think that EA access is a total rip-off. Lets think about this for a second. So now they have a game or so for free to download, how long till the next game is free to download? I ask this because EA never said anything about a monthly free game or anything of that sort. This means that you could pay $30 a year for a game or two well until the end of next year or beyond that until the next game is old enough to be free to the point where they aren't making enough sales on that game anymore, in which case it will be free.
my point is, I just don't see the reason of EA access.
@SimonAdebisi, it's pretty clear that MS built their console strictly with EA in mind it seems. So many decisions they tried to pass or ones that didn't work was more of what EA would do. EA access being on the MS makes more sense, but it doesn't mean it's actually a good subscription.
@SimonAdebisi i don't think MS regrets it, in fact it's leading back to their original plans. Slowly however.
Here's my question: what if EA Access gets to a point of power where you need it to play FIFA/Madden/Battlefield online? So, you need PS Plus and EA Access. What then?
@get2sammyb Thunderdome?
Yep, that's another thing and I wouldn't put it past EA to do that. I really don't care about EA access and this is another way for EA to play more word games to get more money out of gamers.
Obviously Sony is operating out of their own best interests. that doesn't mean however that we are necessarily being duped. their point about having to subscribe for every publisher is valid.
What I know is I wont pay for more than 1 service (PS+) for old games. The coming games I really want I get them asap
@DualWielding because Id rather get all those games from PS+?
@get2sammyb My problem is PS+ has fallen in quality in recent times and this would be the kind of competition to increase quality.
If you like a game then go buy it. If not then go knit a sock. If a ubisoft or Bethesda etc offered a sub that guaranteed beta access or a demo for all their games then I might be interested. Free games? No chance.
@Jazzer94 no it hasn't
@Jazzer94 No it didn't, the reason it seems that way is because it's the beginning of the PS4 cycle. PS+ started very late for Sony's PS3, so there were a lot of games that could be released down the road for free and some big named ones. next year will be even better for PS+ and the year after that as well.
@Demi_God exactly, this time last year we were only getting 4 games for the same price
I actually agree with them on this, and I'm surprised more don't - especially when you consider how much fuss many people kicked up about PS+ being required for PS4 online play.
As Yoshida says, if one does it and it's successful, more will take it up, and before you know it, you have a PS+ sub at £40 a year, an EA Access sub at £30 a year, an Activision sub at £30 a year, a Ubi sub at £30 a year, and so on.
They'll get to a point where the sub is required to play their games. Think it won't? You already have to sign in to an Origin or UPlay account now. Then, depending on the scope of games you like to play, you will possibly be paying out the cost of a new console every year in subscription fees, and that's without the price of the actual games themselves.
This strikes me as just a first step in EA & co's solution to "no more online passes", and effectively bringing in Microsoft's hated XBone DRM policies by the back door, in a more subtle manner. You'll be required to be online to sign in and play these games.
As I've said before, this is a similar situation to the televising of the Premier League. Football on TV went from free to requiring a subscription with Sky, but then others wanted a slice of the pie, and for the last several years you've needed two subscriptions. Subscriptions which currently cost more per year than some Premiership season tickets. In future, as the greed increases, you may need three, maybe more.
This is potentially the start of a very slippery slope, and any 'console allegiances' aside, I'm glad Sony have made at least some effort to nip it in the bud early on. Though only time will tell if their decision is effective.
And before anyone trots out the old line about "well, I can afford it" - wind your neck in. So can I. It's not about being able to afford it, it's about being taken for fools - and if you're genuinely okay with this situation, that's exactly what you are.
Sky sports, BT sports, ESPN, nope, nope, nope, I currently get BT sport free. Its a giant rip off as most people are only interested in the football. The rest is just filler. I'd rather pay for an inflated price season ticket than give sky and BT my money. Same reason I'd rather pay Sony more money for less rather than start adding all sorts of sub's for crappy tidbits.
@Paranoimia As you said...
"This strikes me as just a first step in EA & co's solution to "no more online passes", and effectively bringing in Microsoft's hated XBone DRM policies by the back door, in a more subtle manner. You'll be required to be online to sign in and play these games."
that is exactly what they are doing.
Can anyone please explain the logic that suggests this will sell xboxone?
@Paranoimia Which is exactly why I do NOT buy some EA games that actually look interesting on the computer, the forced use of their crappy DRM known as Origin just use fully use or in some cases even use the game at all. EA was one of the early console game makers that got into the nickel and diming garbage with all the IAP/DLC junk between mobile platforms and consoles. They have that, they have next Origin, and now you have this EA access. Don't think once they figure out this thing is sustainable and profitable they won't start tying down usage of the games from DLC to multiplayer or all 'online' use to a paid service. Sony is self serving and have been very dirty over the years in screwing other console makers into the dirt, but they are on the nose with a valid point on this. If this is allowed to fly on PS4 and it profits, all the other big boys will do it too and I could easily see Activision being the first considering their history of tactics and Square-Enix too since they already do the forced online junk with many games.
I'm not happy with PS+ costing money, but at least every month you get 2 free games out of it per system, good price cuts, and other little perks which makes it not that bad for just $50, but it was stinky making PS4 online bound to it.
@Jazzer94 The only reason PS+ doesn't feel as worth while as it did on previous platforms is the PS4 doesn't have enough games just yet. You can't give something away if there isn't something to give. Next year is when the PS+ service will get better as we'll have alot more games by then. Anyway I still think the service is great as I get around six free games each month for my PS3, Vita and PS4. Some people are just never satisfied.
As far as the EA subscription goes I won't be getting it for my XBONE as Im already paying for XBOX Live Gold and PlayStation Plus and Im also thinking about getting The Elder Scrolls Online which also has a monthly subscription service. I also have a Netflix subscription too. On top of all that there is Sony's new PlayStation Now service in the works for which I'll be getting and if you add to all that my Internet subscription it starts to get a little expensive. I think I'll just purchase EA games the way I always have. I'll just walk into a Game store and hand over my money. That way I have a physical copy on my shelf that I like the look of and I can also trade my game in if I feel the need.
If Sony is so keen on giving its customers value why is Diablo 100% more expensive on PSN for the PS4 than the PS3? The rip off prices on the store just make any of Sony's claims to be fair look totally ridiculous. I can still remember Sony mouthpieces blabbering that they'd never change for playing online.
@voodoo341 RRP
@voodoo341 uhhh because you also get an expansion with it. o.O
@get2sammyb well then, we will march on EA Headquarters and burn it down. Who am i kidding we're gamers and getting out of our chairs is too much of a hassle let alone going on a march.
@SimonAdebisi oh yea sorry... that makes it all right...
@Demi_god it's the exact same limited edition.
Laughable how EA rip customers off but Sony can do no evil... even when they clearly and often do.
@N711 me too but unfortunately, we won't be getting the same quality of games on PS+ this gen than we did on PS3/Vita... Sony is winning the console war and people are forced to subscribe if they want to play online..... now we'll be getting the same level of games Microsoft used to offer..... If people are forced to subscribe Sony has no reason to offer AAA games..... EA, or other publishers with their own subscription services have to deliver with the games or people will simply not subscribe... so they'll probably offer better games
@voodoo341 digital sales will always be crappy so why would they bother to offer the games for less.
@voodoo341 So does Microsoft as well as the xbox division as a whole, so why is this new to you with Sony? Anyway, I'm not even buying this game. o.O
@SimonAdebisi and then they preach to other companies about offering value
I bought a year of EA Access. I've never played a FIFA game before but have wanted to try it.
We all know wher this is going, lets just stop them in ther tracks now, lets choose not to get access..think i might start calling it assexx cause it might b ok at first with a free game here and early access ther and then a few years down the line u get ass f**ked with them charging u this as standard to even play ther games, just say no to assexx
I agree with Sony on this and therefore will continue to choose their offerings. They have a platform and they have a vision for how they want to see gaming, gamers and the industry as a whole. Good on them. MS also have a vision and are executing their plan.
@voodoo341 You need to work on your maths. Its £45 on the PS4 in the UK and it was only £40 on PS3. And the digital version is not 100% more expensive. They do need to revise there PlayStation Store pricing though as the digital versions of games are normally a little more expensive than the retail counterpart which doesn't make sense.
@hadlee73
Thats exactly the issue. Sure, you don't have to now, but what about when things take off and they feel like they can get away with more and more? This is an industry thats become pretty well known for taking good ideas and slowly twisting them into something bad after all.
DLC started as just "extra content" to encourage people to keep their games longer, now we have day-1 DLC, on-disc DLC, and exclusive pre-order DLC. Pre-orders and their bonuses went from securing your copy and receiving a thank you gift of sorts to the games and their "bonus content" being sliced up 9-ways till Sunday and handed out piece by piece. Same with exclusivity, which now also comes in the aforementioned piece meal or bought and payed for flavors.
@hadlee73
Thats certainly true, and I doubt the decision is purely "for the gamers". While they probably do see it as a very real possibility, it also means more competition for PS+ in general.
@WARDIE you need to open your eyes. It's £59.99 for the PS4 and £29.99 for the PS3 for the Limited Edition.
https://store.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/#!/en-gb/diablo-iii-reaper-of-souls/cid=STORE-MSF75508-DIABLOIIICHI
Thats fair enough. I was going off of Diablo's pricing the first time it came out on PS3. Devs and Sony did say that games would be more expensive this gen but I do agree that in some cases pricing needs to be looked at. This game included.
Tap here to load 47 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...