It's been over a year now since Sony deemed EA Access poor value for PlayStation 4 players. The subscription-based service – which allows Xbox One owners to pay £3.99/$4.99 a month for, er, access to an ever expanding library of EA published games – was originally pitched to the PlayStation maker and Microsoft, but only the Redmond organisation opted to support it. At the time, the Japanese giant said: "We don't think that asking our fans to pay an additional [fee] for this EA-specific programme represents good value to the PlayStation gamer."
Back then, we argued that the platform holder was looking at this from a holistic point of view. Indeed, on its own, EA Access seems fairly innocent enough – but what if Ubisoft, Activision, Bethesda, 2K Games, and others decided to join in on the fun? It could be argued that consumers will always vote with their wallets, but there is a very real worry that publishers could lock features behind their own specific paywalls, and that would be bad for the PlayStation ecosystem as a whole.
But that hasn't happened yet with EA Access, which also provides members with free trials for upcoming titles and various discounts and promotions. In fact, the service has gone from strength to strength – particularly if you're a fan of EA published games. At the time of typing, the EA Vault – which is where the "free" titles are stored – currently consists of a whopping 14 games, and we're going to list them out so that you can see what's on offer:
- Battlefield 4
- Madden NFL 25
- FIFA 14
- Peggle 2
- Need for Speed Rivals
- Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare
- EA Sports UFC
- NBA Live 15
- Madden NFL 15
- NHL 15
- FIFA 15
- Titanfall
- Dragon Age: Inquisition
- Battlefield Hardline
EA's output, in this author's opinion, hasn't really hit its stride on new-gen systems yet – but this is still a compelling selection. And, if the service follows its current trajectory, it's only going to get better, with Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Mass Effect Andromeda, and, one would assume, Star Wars Battlefront all likely to be added to the vault eventually. Naturally, at this point we have to come back to Sony's original statement: does all of this really represent poor value to the consumer – or is the platform holder just being needlessly stubborn?
Peter Moore, one of the more likeable bigwigs at EA, said recently that it doesn't matter that the service is not available on the PS4 – but we have to imagine that the company would rather have it on the market leading machine than not. It's fortunate, then, that while Sony's stance seems unlikely to change, it doesn't appear to have impacted the relationship between the two giant companies – Star Wars Battlefront is being marketed as the Japanese giant's big holiday game, for example.
But outside of the corporate politics, is the PlayStation maker really doing what's right for players of its flagship machine? Moore states that consumer satisfaction among EA Access subscribers is "through the roof", and while he could be lying about such things, that sentiment is reflected across the typically cynical venues of social media and message boards. So, is it time that Sony reconsidered its view? If it is, maybe it's time for you to put the pressure on.
Would you subscribe to EA Access if it was available on the PS4? Are you still irritated that Sony's stopping you from making your own mind up about this service? Lock yourself in the comments section vault down below.
Would you subscribe to EA Access on the PS4? (122 votes)
- Yes, I would definitely give it a go
- Meh, I’m not sure
- No, I really don’t think it’s worth it
Please login to vote in this poll.
Is Sony wrong to block the service on its system? (121 votes)
- Yes, consumers should have the choice
- To be honest, I don’t care
- No, it could set a dangerous precedent
Please login to vote in this poll.
Comments 63
Well let's look at recent PS+ offerings.............
Yes Access is better
@Jazzer94 Devil's advocate: what if the existence of Access discourages EA from giving games away with Plus? Would you rather subscribe to both services separately, or have everything under one umbrella?
Definite food for thought in all of this stuff I think.
@get2sammyb When was the last time they even put a game on plus though?
@Jazzer94 Well, this is the thing, isn't it? They have an incentive not to.
Personally I think PS+ is way better any day of the week compared to EA access.
For £40 a year PS+ gives me 72 full games to add to my library as well as discounts throughout the year on other games. Yes, not all 72 are fantastic classics with game of the year nominations but for me about half are really good and get a lot of my time.
For £48 a year you get EA Access, you get access to the 14 games listed (most of which don't interest me in the slightest) and a few demos and discounts. Really not in the same league as far as I'm concerned.
@get2sammyb But even during PS3 era I don't remember them putting much up.
@Jazzer94 I remember getting Need for Speed Shift 2 and Shank, so there was at least some precedent there.
I don't see the value in it personally, mainly because I genuinely cannot remember the last EA game I have bought. Other than that as the article says what if they all try to get in on this? It's already getting to the point where the value of dlc is under question with the big companies, with Destiny, Batman and the rather ludicrous season pass for Battlefront to mention a few. This may only get worse over time and we could end up paying multiple subscriptions just to play on our console
@get2sammyb I have EA Access on my Xbox One and I think it is great value! In fact, I have held off buying Fifa 16 because at the moment 15 is enough for me until 16 goes into the Vault. I think Sony are silly not letting EA Access onto the system - it would only make sense if EA were part of the PS Now Sub but they are not.
@LieutenantFatman £48? My sub cost me £19.99 which is a bargain imo
Wait I see your mistake here. You have multiplied the monthly sub of EA Access by 12 and compared it to the YEARLY cost of PS+
Monthly cost of PS+ would work out at about £70
Wow, when you break it down like that PS+ is a rip off (my opinion) - I have not re-subbed as of yet due to the poor quality of the IGC in recent months. The last good game I thought was rocket league which was brilliant.
[merged]
It's value probably depends on whether people like the games in the vault. I personally think it's good value...but more importantly I think we should have a choice.
Personally, I like to own my games, so I can play them years after release. For me, the less we have of streaming or limited services like these, the better. I'm still hesitating with PS+, since I've heard you can only play "your" games as long as you're subscribed. Also, I hate uPlay - Ubisoft's version of Steam for their games -, and lately they seem to be promoting their system first for their games. What if ideas like EA Access become a standard? Well, at least it could be a failure on PS4 and show them not to go this way...
I think the last time EA gave anything away it was that unexpectedly generous offering at Gamescon when they gave away Need for Speed on PS3 as well as a Vita and PS4 title. It seemed odd seeing as Sony had just blocked Access on the PS4. Havn't seen them do any giveaways since then.
It would be interesting to see how they'd do it if they had launched on PS4. For example you wouldn't be able to have a like for like service on account of Titanfall not being available on Sony systems... I think that's the only real exclusive, but would that rule out those titles being included on the service?
I don't think it offers poor value, in so much as it lowers the value of other services by conceivably ensuring they won't be offered on them. I think the main thing for me is I don't want every games publisher have their own similar services. Ubisoft would definitely follow suit. Maybe even Square Enix. And if everyone is doing it, then all the services are essentially poor value as their scope is just too narrow.
@ZeD £20 is a much better price, I wasn't aware you could get it for that, but still not worth it for me personally.
I think it just what you like and i dont like EA games that much.
Battlefield 4 - Maybe but havent bought it.
Madden NFL 25 - dont play it
FIFA 14 - the where giving the game away for free at Game Mania in holland
Peggle 2 - not my game
Need for Speed Rivals - bad game
Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare - i could have bought for below 10 still didnt
EA Sports UFC - dont play it
NBA Live 15 - dont play it
Madden NFL 15 - dont play it
NHL 15 - dont play it
FIFA 15- dont play it
Titanfall - not on Playstation
Dragon Age: Inquisition - have it
Battlefield Hardline - dont play it
Not worth the cash for me and if i start playing FIFA i want the new one. if i want old trash we can buy it on de PS Vita its FIFA 11with updated rosters the sold it without shame till 2015 and they still charged 40 euro's. While they give other companies a trash talk about remasters......
The one game I would play, DA: Inquisition, I've already completed. EA don't interest me in the slightest
What people forget is if Sony allowed EA Access onto PS4, it sets a dangerous precedent because what's to stop publishers like UbiSoft, Square Enix or Activision from doing the same thing. PC gamers already hate it when there forced to use Origin or Uplay for certain titles. Besides would you really want multiple subscriptions going at the same time?
@adf86
Still no signs on XBox that other publicers are doing the same as EA. The only reason that Sony doesn't wan't this is PS Now. Sony wants money and isn't allways for the games (watch the overoveroverpriced memorycards for the Vita).
A gamer should have the choice, on the XBox you have the choice also and the new games of EA are still coming to the consoles. I don't see any problems and there isn't any difference between PS Now and EA Access. Only the name is different, both contain older games which you can play after you payed for.
Like others have said, it's a good deal if you're interested in what EA has on offer, also if you're all digital like myself, you get a 10% discount on games/DLC. So it's not a bad deal especially when you consider the yearly sub breaks down to just $2.50 (£1.66)/mo. That's a steal! Add in the fact that backwards compatible games may get added to the valut in the future (or at the very least was discussed) you have yourselves a winner.
@get2sammyb
I would imagine if all you're after on PS+ are the freebies, having one sub makes sense, but if you want to game online with your PS4, a PS+ sub is more of a necessity than option which is the case for me. Even though EA is light on giving away games, don't they usually have PS+ sales at the least?
I definitely like to own my games. I fear that this kind of service will encourage more companies to do this kind of thing with exclusive content or something. Not sure if I like this
@adf86
What's stopping them now?
I can understand Sony not wanting to rub elbows with a service like EA Access given how established PS+ is. It's their call at the end of the day PS+ seems like a better deal overall.
I'm telling you there's a lot going on behind the scenes we don't know off. EA partnering with Sony over Battlefront is pure business, like Apple buying Samsung parts for the iPhone, but the love between both companies has surely cooled down. Several people in the industry made claims that EA went behind Sony's back and more or less teamed up with MS and prepared a coup where Xbox would be the strongest player by far and profits would skyrocket because the second hand market would be stopped to a hold. I've heard plenty of these West vs. East stories the last few years already and it was not just EA that was part of this, but they were closest to MS because of Moore. Titanfall's console exclusivity for instance is a direct consequence of these highly secretive plans and is part of an agreement made between MS and EA, maybe Acces is too.
If these rumours are true, which I think is likely because it's not just one source telling this, than I can see why Sony refuses to cooperate and that's why EA doesn't wanna discuss these matters when they're asked about it; they give really short answers if they comment at all, which from their perspective doesn't make any sense.
I like EA acces, mostly because of the 6 - 10 hours you get with a complete game a week before it's out. Because of this I already dodged the Hardline bullet, which I didn't enjoy, got my fill of Madden before it was out and made me realize this year's FIFA isn't made for me. €25 a year is exactly the money I wanna spend on all EA titles and I don't mind if I have to wait 9 - 12 months before I get them!
There's no defending this and there hasn't been from the beginning. If you like EA games it represents good value, certainly better than what I've seen from PS Now. Let the consumers decide what they want, period.
Seems to me that people are so willing to give up their money nowadays. Paying £40 for a game and possible add on content really gets on my nerves. Let alone another yearly payment if i wanna play online. All these subscriptions sound like good ideas but they are ultimately bad in the long run and life has many twists and turns. Jobs can be lost and consoles can be broke or stolen. Its bad enough having internet and phone contracts to worry about.
No more subscriptions.
@Sir_JBizzle possibly the fact that the number one selling system isn't available. that cuts more than half your potential userbase.
There's nothing there that I'd pay extra for. I own BF4 and barely play it now; the rest I'm not interested in.
@cloudrunner64 You say "nowadays" but games are cheaper nowadays and used to be ridiculously expensive. Me and some other posters were talking about this in the comments for another article on this site, but SNES games would be about £70 in some cases and that's nearly £125 when you adjust for inflation. People used to pay £125 for SNES games like Street Fighter II yet now games being £40 is somehow "too much"?
You have "64" in your name which I assume is an N64 reference. So you might remember that N64 games were typically £55 to £65. That latter price in 1998 is the same as £105 nowadays. So when some people bought Ocarina of Time they were paying £105, perhaps they'd have to pay another £20 for the Rumble Pak (can't remember if it was included) then batteries for it (about £5 or so). Even if a game was £40 in 1998, that's still £65 in 2015.
Same in America, too. Bear in mind this was for 5 years ago so the adjusted prices are even higher now.
@ztpayne7 possibly, but they could always just go to Microsoft. If EA has Access, then this "dangerous precedent" has already begun. If UbiSoft wants to start a service, fine. It's not like I have to subscribe. This "dangerous precedent" is just fear mongering (though I think I've said that before on a similar article)
@Neolit So you're saying that Tesco shouldn't be allowed to exist because there's already Sainsbury's? To be honest, your analogy actually argues in favour of EA Access to a huge degree. With traditional shops there's usually a wide variety, Waterstones isn't the only bookshop, Tesco isn't the only place that sells bread, H&M isn't the only place that sells clothes.
I couldn't give less of a crap about these EA Access games but if you bring analogies based on traditional shops into it, it only helps the case for the existence of Origin, EA Access, Uplay etc.
That's what stands out to me the most. I remember everybody sounding off over how it would 'change everything' and 'set a precedent'. Just like how people get all upset over microtransactions and so on being featured in games, then the game comes out and all the hate is pretty much instantly forgotten.
People get way too scared about these kind of initiatives.
@Kohaku if Sony allow it then the ball will get rolling. I'm a vita owner and I hate the memory cards, still think that's why it failed. But correct me if I'm wrong but the publishers forced that on Sony because they were sick of the piracy that came along with the psp.
It's not a great service far as I can see. Plus has gone down the toilet, but I'd still rather have the likes of Super Meat Boy than a year old football game or a multiplayer shooter with barren servers.
@get2sammyb hit the nail on the head with the comment about it being a dangerous precedent.
It's mostly franchise junk we see churned year on year, no thanks.
EA games? Yup, poor value.
@Gamer83 Yes! The perfect answer! Look at what is on offer on Any service and make your mind up. I myself have now and access as it suits my lifestyle
Peggle 2 was £3 with the dlc and nfs was £11 on offer the other day. FIFA 14 is £5 in Game. NBA live is the worst basketball game I have ever played, pvz was free at e3 I think. This is a crap deal. No thanks.
I'd pay for it.
I'd pay for it as well, it's pretty clear why Sony said no, they couldn't make as much money from it as they would of liked Microsoft are not as greedy. I would trade in all my free game's for the whole year from PS- for EA access unless something improve's gamewise, the only game I still play from the freebie's is Rocket League.
@ZeD
I think the problem is people are concerned about other publishers eventually going down this route but I think part of the problem with that is people are missing the bigger picture. PlayStation and Xbox will live on after this gen but I don't believe it's going to be as 'traditional' consoles. Both are going to be much more service based. It's the future of the industry whether people want to accept it or not.
@LieutenantFatman but ea access has at least given a few AAA next gen titles, while PS+ mainly has even indie and some budget non indie releases like First Light or Ground Zeroes, they haven't given a single Next Gen title that has been sold in stores for $60.00... EA Access has
@LieutenantFatman but ea access has at least given a few AAA next gen titles, while PS+ mainly has even indie and some budget non indie releases like First Light or Ground Zeroes, they haven't given a single Next Gen title that has been sold in stores for $60.00... EA Access has
It's really not up to the consumers, since it needs to make sense to Sony. They aren't a public company, after all.
To whoever was arguing over the traditional shops, the analogy is just all wrong.
It really should be rental shops. The difference being you're renting the whole selection, not just what you need/want.
Yeah, sure, it might be cheaper than just buying what you want, but it comes with a bunch of crap you don't want and there's no saving it for later, like most of the people complaining about the lack of ownership are saying. (Crap you may or may not in fact want subject to different descriptions based on observer's own opinions)
Of course, should you hit a wall in that no more stuff comes out that you want, but you still have stuff on there you do want, now you're paying to keep that stuff, paying more than if you'da just bought it outright just to keep it all. (That one there's a bit more like owning vs. renting a home)
If you never hit the wall, great, but how likely is that for you? Thats the real question...
Like @Observer-Hunter and @RenanKJ , subscription services in general aren't what I'm looking for in gaming. I live with a pretty big backlog, so I value the peace of mind physical games yield, of being able to put them on my shelf and play them when I'm ready, whether it's in a day or a decade. I like the tangibility that comes with physical games, too; I find it really does give a game a certain weight for it to have, er, real weight.
A subscription service that's continually adding ephemeral games to my backlog, regardless of whether I want them or not, lacking any weight or presence, and for which I have to continue paying a monthly fee until the day I die for lest they disappear into the ether, is the exact antithesis of what I'm looking for as a gamer.
To each his own, but neither PS+ nor EA's service appeal to me.
I own an XBO but I dont subscribe to EAA, mainly because the games are not interesting to me at all, if they would bring new games like FIFA16, the New NEED FOR SPEED, or SW: BATTLEFRONT it would definitely change the game, but all of those games available in EAA are "old", I already own or owned them (DragonAge, NFS, Battlefield 4), would rather be interested in playin the newest Installment (FIFA Series) or am totally not interested (all those other sports games except soccer)
A friend of mine is totally hyped for EAA ever since its released, he always talks about how much "Value" you get and so on ... id say it depends, for me personally there is no such value right now because of the reasons I mentioned above, and therefore I honestly think that people who "just" own a PS4 dont really miss out on anything
All those games featured in EAA can be bought at an extremely low price right now btw so as long as EA dont comes up with something more modern I dont see any value for myself
Its optional, you can still buy an EA game at retail price at retail release. EA access gives you a vault of games for £20, some might not like the collection, all good DONT buy it.
I don't get the comments about it being dangerous, it has no negative impact on the customer, just gives an extra option.
Well i don't like netflix because its dangerous for the consumer... Said no one ever. You can still buy series on dvd or bluray there is an option of a sub based service. EA access is exactly the same. Maybe if some people actually thought about it, instead of agreeing with Sony about value for money, or coming up with conspiracy/uninformed comments then they might actually see that. Sony don't want you to use EA access because maybe consider for a second ding ding ding... That's right kids... THEY LOSE OUT by having it. Be it that plus doesn't look as good value for money, perhaps they don't make as much ££ on the store because let people buy games and wait for the vault etc etc.
And the comparisons to Plus are unfair imo, access is purely about games, where as with plus you are paying for the games AND the infrastructure of ps plus with the ability to play online etc.
Im starting to resent these publisher-specific services. Maybe its just because i've been playing games for over 20 years now, but I also just like buying a game in its box..
well as i'm not a fan of many EA franchises to me it would be poor value for money of course if you was a fan of their franchises then it would be good value
i think the problem is what it would represent to sony, less control of their own system and i just don't think they want to give that away to a third party, Nintendo didn't and that's why EA pulled out of the deal they had and ruined the Wii U's reputation with other western developers by badmouthing Nintendo and telling outright lies about them, they acted like a spoiled kid who took his ball back because he didn't score
and to be honest if the PS4 wasn't the dominant current gen system then they would have probably pulled support from that too
@Jazzer94 @Jazzer94 LOLfor me its not worth it the games suck and i would not play them if you paid me , first i hate sports games and 98% are lame sports games a style of game that is been raping stupid gamers for years that buy these games at full price. Also there library and what they offer is a joke for non sports fans as dragon age you can buy used for $10 every other month on sale at a eb games . plus xbox needs something have you seen the horrible junk we have been getting on the xbox one and worse the games don't exists . to the baby's then go buy a xbox as i have them all and the games suck also why can you only use a credit card on xbox for this over rated EA service you cant use xbox cash on account or a pre paid visa because ea are scum
@JoeBlogs its not that simple as them saying yes and its done there are contracts and payment still , also its a horrible deal if your not a sports fan its been what over a year and its not worth $5 a year for me with the games they offer. plus my xbox needs any gimmick as there gamless just look at the past 3 months at what we got on the x1 and now take out indie games your left 4 games that are not indie or on pc,ps4 . the x1 has become a dust collector until those 5 first party games arrive lol spread out over 2 bloody years . xbox is a joke even with Phil they have added nothing to the game library except tombraider and the losers had to buy a game that was made big on sony and pc because they cant make good games anymore just look at gears and halo both a joke that only die-hard fanboys get exited for.
If Ubisoft, Activision, Bethesda, 2K Games and others followed suit with a similar scheme and were all on X1 and not PS4 that would be a massive advantage to MS and I think Sony would have to follow suit.
I doubt I'd sign up for EA Access but at the same time I don't like the way we are being dictated by Sony with this matter. Consumers should have choice.
@JoeBlogs From that point of view, I certainly agree with you. If they were worried about consumers, this is a lame excuse. But it's obvious they don't want to risk losing consumers who have to choose between PS+ and EA.
For the fact that you wouldn't honestly own the games on EA, it really doesn't matter...it's just a rental cost, but one that would be good for EA fans that want to play sports titles and not pay the $60 for them on day one. I usually end up waiting the following year for the sports titles (by then, you can get them for cheaper used or even new). If this becomes popular though, I see other companies following in their footsteps...creating one big scheme to where a person ends up spending too much on silly subscriptions.
Back to the story, I voted that I didn't care about the service, but I honestly think Sony should have left it on their console just to give people the satisfaction...there are quite a few that have apparently paid for it and like it, so why not let it onto the PS4...instead, they're letting Microsoft have something else that's exclusive to that system.
I would say yes, its poor value, BUT considering PS+ have been SO BAD that i would say no, its not poor value and it would be pretty good
@DualWielding Fair point I suppose, but I generally prefer the indie games. If there's a retail game I want, I'll buy it. And when done with it, I'll trade it in. So the EA thing just doesn't suit me at all.
@Kohaku The big difference is that PS Now is a streaming service and is the only realistic way that you can play PS3 games on PS4. EA Access is more like PS Plus. Other companies might be put off at the moment because despite EA's optimism they still aren't on the console with the biggest audience, that's made the service have less reach then it has.
@RawShark EA did at PSX give away Mirror's Edge, Need for Speed: Most Wanted and PvZ Garden Warfare, so blocking Access didn't strain things too much.
@Cron_13 It worries some people because what's to stop them from putting content behind the Access paywall? Thay haven't done it yet because they need the subs first. Content already gets put behind retail and preorder promotions, doing it on there own service isn't that big of a stretch.
Who say's you need to pay for it all year round, you could just rent it the month an EA game come's out you like and pay £5 just for the 2 week's early access, that alone is worth £5 to me.
@LieutenantFatman
Too right man, plus EA are hoors....
Also if you want to compare PS+ to EA access out of the 72 game's you get a year prob's 65 of them can be played on a decent mobile phone, all 3 game's that were released this month could run on a phone or even a 2 year old tablet bought from Argos out of the bargain bin near the checkout. Just to add PS+ is still worth the money even without the free game's I don't mind paying £5 a month to play online with my friend's, worth every penny.
It's a great value if you enjoy sports titles, not sure about everyone else.
@crystalorbie I like that analogy best out of all the ones I've read on here.
@BladeRider Thank you very much.
@FaultyDroid you can still do that..
At the current juncture EA access forces you to do nothing. Nothing is hidden behind a paywall and you pay extras. You get 10-hr trails to EA games and certain games drop into a vault to own if you pay for the subscription. Not to mention 10 percent off EA content.
Of course, in a situation like yours or if you don't care about EA games then you simply bow out... But I don't get this "what if other companies follow suit" thing. I literally couldn't careless if they joined in. Like I said, nothing about it FORCES you to have EA access right now.. You're not missing out on content in any capacity. The only situation is if they DO start putting DLC behind the wall could I see it being a problem for others. That's not a big deal to me personally because I'm already a busy man, and if they want to stoop to that level it's very easy for me to not buy content or support shady tactics.. Maybe others don't have that control.
At the end of the day The price point they have it at now is child's play and it's well worth it. I owned BF4 the first year it release and that game alone paid for my Sub when I sold it for 30. I will also sell Madden 16 and recoup most, if not all, of this years subscription as well. Again, the state that the service is in now.. I really see now drawbacks about it but to each his own.
Tap here to load 63 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...