Sony: EA Access Doesn't Represent Good Value

[c@Nc3r]

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

yeah no new games at all

you might have missed my other post

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.

I'm pretty sure all of those have been out for 6 months so they aren't really new games are they. So after the launch rush ends and sales decline to nothing then they will add them. Most likely you already bought them though if you really like those series.

 

[VladDracule]

you might have missed my other post



I'm pretty sure all of those have been out for 6 months so they aren't really new games are they. So after the launch rush ends and sales decline to nothing then they will add them. Most likely you already bought them though if you really like those series.

Do you know that will even happen? And one thing is does it really matter if you get it 6 months after? Until 6 months after an EA sports game release the online community is excruciatingly small, i purposely wait to buy new sports titles for that very reason.

Your just grasping at something to complain about for whatever reason

 

[c@Nc3r]

Do you know that will even happen? And one thing is does it really matter if you get it 6 months after? Until 6 months after an EA sports game release the online community is excruciatingly small, i purposely wait to buy new sports titles for that very reason.

Your just grasping at something to complain about for whatever reason

Its still not new games, latest/newest version does not equal new. Hell FIFA14 has been out since 2013. Like I said, most people that are in to those games will buy them before they ever go on the sub list. If you missed buying a title at launch or don't like buying at launch(because cost and bugs) then you can wait and eventually the game will end up in the list. So I see how it can work for some people.
I'd just prefer the way steam does it with sales rather then renting. I paid 10 bucks on steam for dragons age 1 with the expansion and all the dlc. I can play that whenever I want and never need to spend a penny more. With the sub I would have to pay the monthly and buy the DLC( maybe they will add some dlc to the list and you won't need dlc but I doubt it). I understand you get access to multiple games but I couldn't careless about most of them and I would rather just get a good deal and pay once for the ones I want to play. none of this change the fact that if multiple publishers and developers start doing this you will end paying more for all those subs then you would with just going with a single sub for all.

It doesn't really matter though I guess since Microsoft went along with it and it is what is and it won't be changing. My issue was that everyone was slamming sony when the single sub for all publishers would have been cheaper than multiple subs for every different publisher, even if it does cost more than just one.

 

[VladDracule]

Its still not new games, latest/newest version does not equal new. Hell FIFA14 has been out since 2013. Like I said, most people that are in to those games will buy them before they ever go on the sub list. If you missed buying a title at launch or don't like buying at launch(because cost and bugs) then you can wait and eventually the game will end up in the list. So I see how it can work for some people.
I'd just prefer the way steam does it with sales rather then renting. I paid 10 bucks on steam for dragons age 1 with the expansion and all the dlc. I can play that whenever I want and never need to spend a penny more. With the sub I would have to pay the monthly and buy the DLC( maybe they will add some dlc to the list and you won't need dlc but I doubt it). I understand you get access to multiple games but I couldn't careless about most of them and I would rather just get a good deal and pay once for the ones I want to play. none of this change the fact that if multiple publishers and developers start doing this you will end paying more for all those subs then you would with just going with a single sub for all.

It doesn't really matter though I guess since Microsoft went along with it and it is what is and it won't be changing. My issue was that everyone was slamming sony when the single sub for all publishers would have been cheaper than multiple subs for every different publisher, even if it does cost more than just one.

I can say the same thing about steam sales. 90% of my friends on steam and its much further reaching than that only play ~10% of their steam library. Most people will spent a ton of money on steam sales and never ever touch the game. The fact that you own instead of renting it makes absolutely no difference there. You cant expect a service like this to have launch games on the day of or even month of launch, they would NEVER sell a title. Like I said your setting unrealistic expectations and just finding something to complain about

 

[VladDracule]

Its still not new games, latest/newest version does not equal new. Hell FIFA14 has been out since 2013. Like I said, most people that are in to those games will buy them before they ever go on the sub list. If you missed buying a title at launch or don't like buying at launch(because cost and bugs) then you can wait and eventually the game will end up in the list. So I see how it can work for some people.
I'd just prefer the way steam does it with sales rather then renting. I paid 10 bucks on steam for dragons age 1 with the expansion and all the dlc. I can play that whenever I want and never need to spend a penny more. With the sub I would have to pay the monthly and buy the DLC( maybe they will add some dlc to the list and you won't need dlc but I doubt it). I understand you get access to multiple games but I couldn't careless about most of them and I would rather just get a good deal and pay once for the ones I want to play. none of this change the fact that if multiple publishers and developers start doing this you will end paying more for all those subs then you would with just going with a single sub for all.

It doesn't really matter though I guess since Microsoft went along with it and it is what is and it won't be changing. My issue was that everyone was slamming sony when the single sub for all publishers would have been cheaper than multiple subs for every different publisher, even if it does cost more than just one.

Any really? You think Sony's Sub service is better? I have PS+ and havent downloaded a single game because its the same shit. They release games after i had already bought them. You cant say Sonys service is better when new release games arent part of their service either aside from maybe a few crappy indie games

 

[c@Nc3r]

=

I can say the same thing about steam sales. 90% of my friends on steam and its much further reaching than that only play ~10% of their steam library. Most people will spent a ton of money on steam sales and never ever touch the game. The fact that you own instead of renting it makes absolutely no difference there. You cant expect a service like this to have launch games on the day of or even month of launch, they would NEVER sell a title. Like I said your setting unrealistic expectations and just finding something to complain about

No I'm not, I was just stating facts. They can not and will not put new games in the sub list but people are acting like that is what they are doing. Even you tried to say BF4 was a new game by twisting words. Me personally I would rather buy whether the game is old or new but I understand how the subscription model might work for someone else.

But again back to my real point

Every thing else is just my own pet peeves with what they are doing and what kind of business models I prefer. It kind of goes back to the steam vs origin debate. I would rather have a one stop shop for all my games and not need to have multiple logins and accounts and launchers and dashboards and subscriptions when it can all be done in one single package.

Just to make this clear I am not a Sony fan and I have not bought a single Sony product since the PS2. I just see where this time Sony is right in that if you look at the big picture, its not as good of a deal.

 

[Kinsaras]

Any really? You think Sony's Sub service is better? I have PS+ and havent downloaded a single game because its the same shit. They release games after i had already bought them. You cant say Sonys service is better when new release games arent part of their service either aside from maybe a few crappy indie games

Well I don't think you can really compare either service to one another, PS+ has had some great games. BioShock Infinite, Metro: Last Light, DMC, Batman: Arkham City, Borderlands 2, Binary Domain to name a handful.

But it's all subjective. I've had more fun with those "crappy indie games" than most AAA titles.

 

[Ocellaris]

Any really? You think Sony's Sub service is better? I have PS+ and havent downloaded a single game because its the same shit. They release games after i had already bought them. You cant say Sonys service is better when new release games arent part of their service either aside from maybe a few crappy indie games

Oh come on, a lot of the indie games on PS+ have been really good.

 

[c@Nc3r]

Any really? You think Sony's Sub service is better? I have PS+ and havent downloaded a single game because its the same shit. They release games after i had already bought them. You cant say Sonys service is better when new release games arent part of their service either aside from maybe a few crappy indie games

I never said any of them would have new games you tried to, but I did not. I said none of them could afford to have new games. I also said it would be better to have one sub for all the games rather than a sub for each different publisher. Truth be told I wouldn't pay for Sony's sub either as I have no use for any sub. I just believe it would be a better value to pay for one sub rather than paying for multiple and in that regard Sony is right. EAs sub not as good of a value.

 

[SilkySalamandr]

Lots of people MISSING the point.

Who cares how you "think" this is going to work. The question was is it a better value.

Someone mentioned steam and I laughed. 95% of the steam sale games are fucking games that was in the previous deep discounts. WTF do you still have tomb raider(great game btw) in your sales like its and amazing thing.

But hey, folks will spin this anyway they can to come out on top!

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Lots of people MISSING the point.

Who cares how you "think" this is going to work. The question was is it a better value.

Someone mentioned steam and I laughed. 95% of the steam sale games are fucking games that was in the previous deep discounts. WTF do you still have tomb raider(great game btw) in your sales like its and amazing thing.

But hey, folks will spin this anyway they can to come out on top!

I don't think YOU understand. Forum discussions like these are about me winning the argument, even if it means that I have to create an argument when one doesn't exist.

 

[Exavior]

I don't think YOU understand. Forum discussions like these are about me winning the argument, even if it means that I have to create an argument when one doesn't exist.

I crown you winner

 

[next-Jin]

I don't think its a "good" value in the sense that it's on top of Microsofts Live service which is 60 dollars a year. I appreciate them giving customers choice and I am grateful (and surprised) that they went along with it.

With PS+ you get some good titles monthly for 50 dollars a year, which you are probably purchasing anyway. Microsofts Games for Gold has not had anything even remotely good because the games are yours to keep. It's all personal preference and subjective, PS+ imo has just dominated from the value perspective.

To do this service you pay 90 dollars a year for lower quality GFG games and older EA titles.

 

[SilkySalamandr]

I don't think its a "good" value in the sense that it's on top of Microsofts Live service which is 60 dollars a year. I appreciate them giving customers choice and I am grateful (and surprised) that they went along with it.

With PS+ you get some good titles monthly for 50 dollars a year, which you are probably purchasing anyway. Microsofts Games for Gold has not had anything even remotely good because the games are yours to keep. It's all personal preference and subjective, PS+ imo has just dominated from the value perspective.

To do this service you pay 90 dollars a year for lower quality GFG games and older EA titles.

I get what you are saying. I have had xbox live for 10 years and I have NEVER paid 60 bucks for it. You can find subs for xbox live every year on the black friday/cyber monday sales for 35 bucks.

So I guess if youre going off of msrp(which no one should ever pay anyways) your math would be correct.

 

[DarkLegacy]

I see no real argument to be made against this. Put it this way, Xbox Live cost what, $60 a year at the moment. I have never in my life paid MSRP for Xbox Live. I have always caught it on sale via Amazon, BestBuy, Newegg, etc. During those sales, I am still on codes that I imputed in 2012 since the codes do stack up to 3 years. As I mentioned in a previous post, $30 a year isn't shit. Hell, that's far less than a huge majority of our weekly expensive towards other things. I'm not big on a majority of EA games other than Battlefield atm so this is a great deal for me.

 

[next-Jin]

I get what you are saying. I have had xbox live for 10 years and I have NEVER paid 60 bucks for it. You can find subs for xbox live every year on the black friday/cyber monday sales for 35 bucks.

So I guess if youre going off of msrp(which no one should ever pay anyways) your math would be correct.

I agree but you have to use MSRP as a baseline because much like you I have never paid full MSRP for either Live or my PS+ subs. PS+ was 30 bucks last Black Friday like it always has been.

I just don't see the reasoning to be critical when PS+ is essentially the same thing as EA Access. EA can still profit off of PS+ and the effect would be the exact same thing, customer gets free access to the same games, EA gets a cut from Sony for having a game that month and future DLC purchases.

The customer pays for PS+ and that's it where as with this option you are paying quite a bit more, only in this case you get lower quality games from GFG and pay almost double the amount.

 

[Exavior]

I don't think its a "good" value in the sense that it's on top of Microsofts Live service which is 60 dollars a year. I appreciate them giving customers choice and I am grateful (and surprised) that they went along with it.

With PS+ you get some good titles monthly for 50 dollars a year, which you are probably purchasing anyway. Microsofts Games for Gold has not had anything even remotely good because the games are yours to keep. It's all personal preference and subjective, PS+ imo has just dominated from the value perspective.

To do this service you pay 90 dollars a year for lower quality GFG games and older EA titles.

That is not true, you do NOT have to have Xbox live for this service. You only need Xbox live if you wish to play a game online with others like is needed for any other game. The EA rental service does not require the need for Xbox live gold to use to rent games. That is open to everyone.

As far as games for gold, there have been some good titles. Maybe not brand new but still good, some have been crappy though.

 

[next-Jin]

That is not true, you do NOT have to have Xbox live for this service. You only need Xbox live if you wish to play a game online with others like is needed for any other game. The EA rental service does not require the need for Xbox live gold to use to rent games. That is open to everyone.

As far as games for gold, there have been some good titles. Maybe not brand new but still good, some have been crappy though.

You don't need Live but who wants to play Battlefield, Madden and FIFA solo?

And if you split them up it does not change anything when compared to PS+. Either one by themselves at their yearly prices still don't favorably compare to PS+ in my opinion.

 

[NickJames]

Lol, sports games.

 

[Outamyhead]

Are they going to make their games library cross compatible, with hardware that didn't exist at the time?

Because for some systems especially the latest consoles, that's only two or three games and it just isn't worth it if that is the case.

Also, are the games that are available, do they include all the DLC, or are they the bog standard missing half the side quests, character story lines, (because Mass Effect 2, was missing a crap ton of story, and Dragon Age had a big chunk of character story missing)?

I already own the games I was actually interested in, and the monthly freebie has given me some games I was interested in, so there isn't much left worth getting. I can see this being some sort of DRM, central server connection fustercluck anyway.

 

[Exavior]

You don't need Live but who wants to play Battlefield, Madden and FIFA solo?

And if you split them up it does not change anything when compared to PS+. Either one by themselves at their yearly prices still don't favorably compare to PS+ in my opinion.

But you are comparing two different things. You are comparing the cost of getting a car plus the cost of a boat, jet ski and personal jet vs the cost of a truck. Because after all who wants to get around in just a car all the time. Therefore a truck cost less.

PS+ and Live are needed for online play, and do not have anything to do with the EA service. You CAN use the service without live in the same way that you can go buy the game in the store and play it without live, does that make it less fun.... sure but it is possible. So all that is here to look at is does the EA service itself equal a good value.

$5 / month or $30 a year for unlimited rental access to a certain list of EA games, early access to games a month before they come out as demo access, and discounts on purchasing full versions of games. Is that alone worth $5 per month / $30 a year if you already have a xbox system.

If you personally don't like EA games then no there isn't any value in it for you. If you think you might enjoy playing a few during the year that are on the list to rent or that you might buy some and be able to use the discount, then you would get your money's worth.

 

[next-Jin]

$5 / month or $30 a year for unlimited rental access to a certain list of EA games, early access to games a month before they come out as demo access, and discounts on purchasing full versions of games. Is that alone worth $5 per month / $30 a year if you already have a xbox system.

That's exactly what PS+ does except it offers games from all publishers including EA and it allows you to play online with PS4. It doesn't represent good value to Sony customers because EA can just as easily use PS+ and accomplish the same thing.

At least that's what I believe they are coming from. Either way like I said in my last sentence in my post, neither GFG or EA Access by themselves can compare to PS+ from a value perspective and together they are way more expensive and still can't really compare.

 

[Exavior]

That's exactly what PS+ does except it offers games from all publishers including EA and it allows you to play online with PS4. It doesn't represent good value to Sony customers because EA can just as easily use PS+ and accomplish the same thing.

At least that's what I believe they are coming from. Either way like I said in my last sentence in my post, neither GFG or EA Access by themselves can compare to PS+ from a value perspective and together they are way more expensive and still can't really compare.

PlayStation Plus like Games for Gold give you one or two select titles every month. That is not renting you titles. That is where PlayStation Now comes in and is an additional charge of per hour per title, not unlimited games for a month.

Both give you free games. I will not disagree that PS+ gives you newer titles as that is true. That was one reason that for GFG on the 360 you got to keep the games forever as they give you games that are a year or more past their release. Xbox One and PS3/4 are giving you new games so for those 3 platforms you have to keep said service active to access the games. Which I understand that part and find it better to be able to get newer released titles.

Both give you discounts on games purchased for that system through their digital store.

And both give you demos of released games. However right now with PS+ can you go and download a demo of Metro: Redux? Madden NFL 15? Diablo III: Ultimate Evil Edition? Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare? Counterspy? These are all games coming out this month. Based on your comment PS+ lets you play games a month before their actual release, these games get released this month so you have demos of these then?
If not then there is not the same. With the EA service (if on PS) you would be able right now to go download at least a few games there and start playing them now even though the full game doesn't come out for another few weeks.

Again you are comparing Xbox Live and PS+. Which doesn't matter, EA offered this service to Sony also, that is what this story and thread are about. So you could have PS+ AND EA's service just the same as Xbox Live and EA's service. so anything to do with one platform over the other doesn't matter as this service was going to work on both but Sony said that the service didn't offer any value to any customers on any platform. For Sony to offer you anything similar to EA (which in a way they are with PlayStation Now) they are going to charge you even more on top of PS+