Sony: EA Access Doesn't Represent Good Value

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apparently Sony doesn't think $30 a year is a good deal for EA's Access program.

“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect,” a Sony representative told us via email. “PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price. We don’t think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
EA seems hard at work to regain their status as most hated company in America.

God Speed EA.
 
This actually does seem like a great deal for bro gamers.
 
Since Im in the xbox one dashboard beta program, I already have access to this. Works great. Im sure all publishers will follow suit and this will make ps streaming service not a great value. Microsoft and EA just undid everything Sony has done in a matter of a day.
 
I think someone in another thread mentioned it was only worthwhile if you bought 5 or more EA games a year or something. Since that would never be me, I can't see wanting to use this service...
 
So paying 30 bucks a year to have access to games that they put in the vault anytime you want is not a good value? I dont even purchase any ea sports games but you can play all the games in the vault for 35 dollars cheaper than buying ONE new game.

Im certain that this is a test to see how the market will react. I guarantee the other publishers will follow if this is successful.

This is the plan to get console gamers used to digital only delivery. And we all know that content publishers want dd to go through and this is how they will push it.
 
cyclone3d said:
How does 5 x 12 = 30?
Click to expand...

It actually equals $60.

But that's if you go month-to-month. You might be able to get $30 a year if you get an annual subscription. A lot of places offer deep discounts if you buy a longer subscription upfront.
 
If Steam did this it would turn the world upside down in a good way, ea doing this is just suspicious.
 
Sounds like Sony is upset. Paying $60 to play 4 games for 1 years. I dont know about your guys but considering you only play games like that for a few months sounds like good value to me.
 
mt2e said:
If Steam did this it would turn the world upside down in a good way, ea doing this is just suspicious.
Click to expand...

This is a test for the market. Others will follow.

Sony is very upset at this because they thought they would use all the good will they built up with fans against Microsoft and shove it up their asses gently.
 
Depending on how PS+ free games work it sounds like they would be better suited to let their games be on that program and have Sony pay them. No one knows the details but good on MS and EA I guess, this wouldn't be something I would want since I normally only do Madden every other year.
 
I think it's a superb value. $30 to most people is a set it & forget it expense & you'll have access to a growing catalog of vaulted games. Games that will come very handy when you're in that gap waiting for that next big game you want to get to come out.
 
30 a year is 2 bucks a month that ain't shit. Worth it to play games I didn't buy before and discount on ones I might. Unfortunately Ps now is over priced and underdelivers.
 
athenian200 said:
It actually equals $60.

But that's if you go month-to-month. You might be able to get $30 a year if you get an annual subscription. A lot of places offer deep discounts if you buy a longer subscription upfront.
Click to expand...

It has two option

$4.99 a month

$29.99 a year

Which one is the value?
 
SilkySalamandr said:
Since Im in the xbox one dashboard beta program, I already have access to this. Works great. Im sure all publishers will follow suit and this will make ps streaming service not a great value. Microsoft and EA just undid everything Sony has done in a matter of a day.
Click to expand...

Hardly. You only get the base game, no DLC. If you want that, you have to buy it yourself. So now you own the DLC, and decide to drop the $5/mo pass. Guess what, you just wasted your money.
 
Lol Sony sounds jelly that someone is beating them to the punch. EA subscription service for games doesn't sound bad, they keep your data so if you bought the game it carries over and they offer discounts to buying the game if you're part of the service. Ofc the only thing that matters though is new releases, if they significantly delay in demand titles the service ends up being alot worse. Currently newer titles don't seem to be offered, if that doesn't change the service will fail like any other as people want new games.
 
Steam already does this.

Only everyone buys their subscription at the same time. During the Winter or Summer sales event. Haha!
 
Skillz said:
Steam already does this.

Only everyone buys their subscription at the same time. During the Winter or Summer sales event. Haha!
Click to expand...
Yeah but steam practices like casino tactics to keep people throwing money at things they don't need to get the rush of "winning", you don't get that from a subscription.
 
lucidrenegade said:
Hardly. You only get the base game, no DLC. If you want that, you have to buy it yourself. So now you own the DLC, and decide to drop the $5/mo pass. Guess what, you just wasted your money.
Click to expand...
Except you didn't because you got to play the game while you had the subscription - and of course if you're going to be buying DLC, it makes a lot more sense to go with the $30/year option.

But I guess if you're going to go searching for reasons to call this a bad deal, that's not the dumbest one.
 
Babbster said:
Except you didn't because you got to play the game while you had the subscription - and of course if you're going to be buying DLC, it makes a lot more sense to go with the $30/year option.

But I guess if you're going to go searching for reasons to call this a bad deal, that's not the dumbest one.
Click to expand...

To add to this, MS has made it a habit to do DLC sales. You'll just have to catch them for the EA games once they become available.
 
DarkLegacy said:
To add to this, MS has made it a habit to do DLC sales. You'll just have to catch them for the EA games once they become available.
Click to expand...
And Games with Gold (a better deal since you get to keep every game you download under that program even if you quit paying for Gold) has clearly been designed to spur DLC sales, which I think is smart. It makes little sense for a company to add their game to a program like this unless there's something the customer might be enticed into buying - DLC, a sequel, or both.
 
Semantics said:
Yeah but steam practices like casino tactics to keep people throwing money at things they don't need to get the rush of "winning", you don't get that from a subscription.
Click to expand...

It is nothing like a casino. You give Steam/Valve money for a game and you're buying something. Granted it might not be a physical copy but you at least walk away with the rights to play a game.

In a casino you aren't guaranteed anything. You can throw down $10k and walk out with nothing.
 
SilkySalamandr said:
Cause if you read you can purchase a year for 30. Its 5 a month if you dont.
Click to expand...

I don't have PS3 or PS4 so the sub doesn't matter to me.. which I why I didn't click the link. The title plus the quote made it sound like somebody didn't know how to do math.
 
Babbster said:
And Games with Gold (a better deal since you get to keep every game you download under that program even if you quit paying for Gold) has clearly been designed to spur DLC sales, which I think is smart. It makes little sense for a company to add their game to a program like this unless there's something the customer might be enticed into buying - DLC, a sequel, or both.
Click to expand...

Don't forget with GWG 360 games you keep forever Xbox One games require a current gold sub just like PS+ just to be perfectly clear about the services.

This is so cheap I can't see how it wouldn't be anything but awesome.
 
Awe Sony..missed the boat?

$30..It's a fucking good deal..awesome deal.

Watch Sony will cozy up with someone else.
 
HisSvt76 said:
Don't forget with GWG 360 games you keep forever Xbox One games require a current gold sub just like PS+ just to be perfectly clear about the services.

This is so cheap I can't see how it wouldn't be anything but awesome.
Click to expand...

Well with PS+ you don't own the games..you just sort of borrowing them for a while until Sony takes them down.

With Xbox Gold you really do own them permanently..digitally.
 
Technikal said:
Well with PS+ you don't own the games..you just sort of borrowing them for a while until Sony takes them down.

With Xbox Gold you really do own them permanently..digitally.
Click to expand...

True, Sony gives you newer games consistently where Xbox gold has only give out games that are so old no one cares. But the good thing about PS+ is if you just purchase the free game while its free and dont dl it you will have it for as long as a PS+ account is active. If you lapse on a sub and resub later you will still have it. But lately PS+ has been kinda crappy for PS3 so I cant really say its a superb value, PS4 all they really give is indie games, and PS Vita theres not many good games worth getting lol.
 
$5 a month or $30 a year is a bad price for unlimited rentals of different games. Now the Sony method of $5 for 4 hours or $30 for 90 day rental of 1 game.... that is a much better value to the customer.
 
Technikal said:
Awe Sony..missed the boat?

$30..It's a fucking good deal..awesome deal.

Watch Sony will cozy up with someone else.
Click to expand...

Sony has their own streaming service, one that is more expensive than the EA one. That is why they are bashing it.

It would be no good for them to have their own streaming game service AND a rental system on the same platform. They would be competing against each other. That would be like McDonalds setting up a Burger King in the corner for every one of their locations.
 
Sounds like a good deal but his is EA so.... I'll wait to see how it goes. I have no faith in their company nor do I play enough of their games to justify the cost if it's only for EA titles.

"I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it."
 
Just buying a game from EA is like tossing money to the homeless. A pay service from EA? This has to be some sort of joke they are playing, and it isn't even April 1st.
 
The issue with EA's service is the number of games they will eventually allow you to access. I honestly doubt they will allow you to access all their games because they will be losing money - a LOT of money. EA is heavily focused on driving shareholder value vs. caring about their customers, so I doubt this will benefit the consumer in the end.
 
cyclone3d said:
I don't have PS3 or PS4 so the sub doesn't matter to me.. which I why I didn't click the link. The title plus the quote made it sound like somebody didn't know how to do math.
Click to expand...

So if this "doesn't matter to you" WTF is the point in even commenting then?

:rolleyes:

This is excellent value for the people that buy sports games year after year.
 
They will never put a new game on there so its funny seeing so many get excited. It will be just like the free giveaways on origin. If you think EA is going to give you more than that then you must be high. One thing that I see here that I think many are missing is how much this looks like the start of bundling like what cable companies do. Its like PS wanted to have one place to go for all different publishers for one price but EA wants to have there own. Then maybe ubisoft will have their own, and activision will get their own and so on with every major developer/publisher. So now to have them all you are paying each one 5 bucks a month or you get the bundle with everything for 50 bucks a month. But if everyone would have just supported the PS model you'd be paying only $10/month and getting the same thing. Who knows maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember the last time EA did something that was good for the consumer.
 
face2palm said:
So if this "doesn't matter to you" WTF is the point in even commenting then?

:rolleyes:

This is excellent value for the people that buy sports games year after year.
Click to expand...

How is it a great value, they won't add new titles to the list. You will still be buying those year after year. Unless you can handle waiting 6 months to a year to get the latest version.
 
c@Nc3r said:
They will never put a new game on there so its funny seeing so many get excited. It will be just like the free giveaways on origin. If you think EA is going to give you more than that then you must be high. One thing that I see here that I think many are missing is how much this looks like the start of bundling like what cable companies do. Its like PS wanted to have one place to go for all different publishers for one price but EA wants to have there own. Then maybe ubisoft will have their own, and activision will get their own and so on with every major developer/publisher. So now to have them all you are paying each one 5 bucks a month or you get the bundle with everything for 50 bucks a month. But if everyone would have just supported the PS model you'd be paying only $10/month and getting the same thing. Who knows maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember the last time EA did something that was good for the consumer.
Click to expand...

Fifa 14 - newest version until 15 release
Madden - newest version until next release
Battlefield 4 - newest till release..

yeah no new games at all :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top