EA Access: Sony's response, is it the future of gaming and does it affect gamers?

[Plainview]

Has Sony shot themselves in the foot by denying EA… access?

With Microsoft and EA partnering up for EA Access, Sony has chosen to not allow EA Access in its ecosystem. According to Sony, EA Access “does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect.” Everything we’ve read thus far about EA Access makes it seem like an incredible deal. If Sony is claiming it doesn’t bring value, when it seems that it does, what’s the reason Sony is stating it doesn’t?

A massive part of the future of the PlayStation brand is their PlayStation Now service that is set to go into public beta in a few days. The service will offer game rentals on a per game basis starting at $2.99 to $19.99 per rental. With the launch of EA Access, one has to believe that there won’t be a single EA game for rental through PlayStation Now. Microsoft doesn’t have a subscription model. They have Games with Gold but nothing comparable to a rental model. Partnering with EA for EA Access, Microsoft will only profit from the partnership. There’s really no downside for Microsoft and made the decision quite financially easy for them. For Sony, the decision probably wasn't as easy.

Sony isn’t about to let another company cut into their profits. While the PlayStation brand is doing very well, the company, as a whole, isn’t. Any cut into profits will be met with a brick wall. EA Access ran into that brick wall. EA is known throughout the gaming community as the devil as far as publishers go. Some gamers are applauding Sony for “taking a stance” against EA. There’s the thought that if EA is able to do this then all publishers will start doing this as well. Don't worry, other publishers won't, and can't. Sony’s position with EA Access isn’t a noble one no matter how much people wish it was. It’s profit driven, period. It's just like all other business decisions. It comes down to profit.

There’s no way EA would ever pull a big name launch title from the PlayStation platform like they did with the Dreamcast, but, one has to wonder, what measures EA will take to protect its new EA Access service? Will certain games arrive on the Xbox One a bit earlier? Will all EA games be pulled, and not show up at all, on PlayStation Plus? I don’t envision any EA games showing up on PlayStation Now now that EA Access has been launched. No EA games would be a pretty big blow to PlayStation Now with games like Battlefield, Madden and FIFA nowhere to be found.

Is the subscription model the future of gaming?

With EA setting the precedent as the first publisher to launch their own subscription model on a home console, will others follow suit? If others follow EA’s lead, we know it’s good for publishers. They’ll increase their audience. Publishers could possibly get more game sales when gamers try out older titles and enjoy it enough to purchase the newer ones. This could be a boon to struggling publishers. It creates another source of revenue for them. Games that are not selling well anymore, or have reached saturation, will get new life like the games offered through Games with Gold and PlayStation Plus.

One of the aspects of EA Access that could hurt EA is the early access to games gamers will get. Gamers will get to access pre-purchased titles, not 100% certain if games have to be pre-purchased for access, and try the game out for two hours. I know in that time I can tell if I’ll like a gamer or not. I’m sure other gamers can as well. If a game is released as a buggy mess like Battlefield 4 was, gamers will be running for the hills. With the potential for lost sales a possibility, EA, and publishers who follow the same model, will have to make sure titles are rock solid and contain very few bugs. That’s a plus for gamers.

Will the subscription model be good or bad for gamers?

I love Games with Gold. It’s given me the opportunity to play games I would otherwise have bypassed. The Xbox One’s Games with Gold for July featured Guacamelee. The game ended up being one of the best games I’ve played in years. If it were not for Games with Gold I wouldn’t have played the game and now I’m 100% set on purchasing the next installment . . . if there is one! While I don’t own a PlayStation and have access to PlayStation Plus, I’m sure there are countless gamers who’ve had the same experience as me with that service.

Picture courtesy of ocweekly.com​

How will EA Access, if at all, shape the future of gaming?

Let’s get this out of the way, no other publisher can pull off what EA is attempting to pull off with EA Access. It’s just not possible with any other publisher for the foreseeable future. Ubisoft seems like the next logical candidate to follow but, unlike EA, Ubisoft doesn’t have many annual titles to put into a vault type service. The same goes for Activision. Activision has the yearly Call of Duty release but it will take years to come close to having a worthy backlog. Those are two of the bigger publishers going but it will be years before they have the content available to attempt what EA has with EA Access. If you look at it, there’s no other publisher that will have the amount of games available to do what EA is doing. So those that fear other publishers will follow suit, fear not, it’s not going to happen any time soon. Other publishers will be better off using Games with Gold and PlayStation Plus/Now as their ‘subscription’ platform.

 

[D-V-ANT]

Pretty much agree with all of that. Nice job.

 

[wshowers]

I don't think Sony has shot themselves in the foot just yet. If PS Now is priced competitively then I think they may have a fighting chance. If the prices stay at beta prices then, I'm not sure. Especially when/if EA starts adding to their vault catalog. I like this competition. Heaven help Sony if EA can manage to get EA published games in Access or if they get other publishers to join access.

 

[D-V-ANT]

The real kick here is if games on EA Access will not appear in PS Now. If that happens, the service is dead before it arrives.

 

[wshowers]

@D-V-ANT I think that's THE big decision EA needs to make. From a business perspective, if I were EA I'd have it exclusive to EA Access, similar to how they do with Origin games on the PC. Why help another service over your own?

 

[D-V-ANT]

@D-V-ANT I think that's THE big decision EA needs to make. From a business perspective, if I were EA I'd have it exclusive to EA Access, similar to how they do with Origin games on the PC. Why help another service over your own?

Yep, at a marco level, that makes sense. However you don't know what kind of publishing agreements already exist with Sony, or what kind of money Sony might be willing to part with in order to get these games onto their service. I'm sure Sony will negotiate something to have the big titles available. There is no way they can go without Madden, Fifa, Battlefield, or any of the other top selling EA titles.

 

[menace-uk-]

I gotz one word for this, lolz

The real kick here is if games on EA Access will not appear in PS Now. If that happens, the service is dead before it arrives.

Seems a bit harsh. EA while having some big games, still hold a relatively small portfolio. PS NOW will be just fine without them. Obviously would be better with them though.

 

[Kerosene31]

I'm always skeptical of EA as most are, but I don't see the problem. This is an optional service for people to use if they wish. You can still buy games new the old fashioned way.

From the details we've seen so far, you can pretty much play 1-2 games a lot and get your money's worth.

 

[Obscene Jester]

Thank you Sony for protecting us from dumb choices.

 

[D-V-ANT]

I gotz one word for this, lolz



Seems a bit harsh. EA while having some big games, still hold a relatively small portfolio. PS NOW will be just fine without them. Obviously would be better with them though.

It's all a value proposition and having some of the most popular games in the world not available to you if you select a certain paid service, seriously detracts fro that value of that service. Also, EA are the biggest publisher in the world.

 

[D-V-ANT]

Thank you Sony for protecting us from dumb choices.

Having a decision made for you is dumb?

 

[menace-uk-]

It's all a value proposition and having some of the most popular games in the world not available to you if you select a certain paid service, seriously detracts fro that value of that service. Also, EA are the biggest publisher in the world.

Well, surely that goes for the EA access too. Which is more limited than PS NOW.

 

[dkrause71]

I gotz one word for this, lolz



Seems a bit harsh. EA while having some big games, still hold a relatively small portfolio. PS NOW will be just fine without them. Obviously would be better with them though.

This is what i think as well. Origin practically begs people to join their system and Steam doesn't seem to be hurt by the lack of EA games. While i would agree, it would be better for PSN Now to have EA games, i think that system is more likely to fail from insane prices, then the lack of EA games.

I'll be following the EA Access, i tend to think its going to be older games. Last years sports games, stuff like that. While that isn't something that would excite me, i am sure others would be happy about it.

 

[wshowers]

I think the main difference outside of games is pricing. In my mind, EA hit the bulls-eye with their pricing. For Sports guys like me, this is a no brainer, the service pays for itself with 2 games. Even non-sports guys win if they decide to put up a bunch of non-sports games on there like the new Mirrors edge, Dragon age, Battlefield, Mass Effect, SW Battlefront etc. EA just needs to increase the catalog offerings, which I'm sure they will over time, and this service is going to be quite viable.

 

[BDaddyK]

When it comes down to it EA is a business and they're in it to make money. I bet we'll see EA games on Sony's network, especially if Sony isnt going to allow EA to have their access sub. plan on PSN. Hell EA might even be able to charge more for the games on PSN, who knows. I doubt it'll be the end of EA games on Sony's services though.

 

[Obscene Jester]

Having a decision made for you is dumb?

Is that what I said? Sony shooting down this awful precedent while being the market leader this gen, will hopefully deter other publishers from trying this bs. The industry is bad enough with all the DLC garbage, I don't want to see game content further segregated with a slew of subscription services.

 

[Plainview]

Is that what I said? Sony shooting down this awful precedent while being the market leader this gen, will hopefully deter other publishers from trying this bs. The industry is bad enough with all the DLC garbage, I don't want to see game content further segregated with a slew of subscription services.

Your argument is invalid because you'll still be able to buy the full games. None of this affects how any of us currently buy games. All Sony's decision does is prevent gamers from playing Battlefield 4, Fifa 14, Madden 25 for $4.99.

 

[Bgamer90]

Thank you Sony for protecting us from dumb choices.

Heh, because PS4 owners couldn't make that decision themselves?

Is that what I said? Sony shooting down this awful precedent while being the market leader this gen, will hopefully deter other publishers from trying this bs. The industry is bad enough with all the DLC garbage, I don't want to see game content further segregated with a slew of subscription services.

Find it a bit ironic that you are saying that Sony is shutting down "awful precedents" after switching the PSN service to requiring users to pay for online play. I think that's continuing "nickel and dimming" via subs... not stopping it.

Anyway, Sony shouldn't have made a public response to this. Find it very shortsighted. People who were interested in the PS4 and the service and thought the service was only exclusive for a timed period may now switch to getting an Xbox One. Saying something isn't good from a company that makes the top selling games on your console is unnecessary. "Burning your bridges" a bit.

Somewhat reminds me of back in 2003/2004 when MS thought Xbox Live as a unified service was more important than getting EA online play. Services from big third party companies that make games that help sell your console should be welcome IMO -- If it isn't good then users would put blame on the 3rd party company, not the console maker. Service would fail & hurt 3rd that party. The console (and/or company that makes the console) would be out of the mess.

This is a good service for people who buy multiple EA games regularly and future Xbox One bundles could tie in free month subs to both Xbox Live Gold and EA Access in the future. That would be a decent library/set of Xbox One games as soon as someone connects their new console (EA Access + Games with Gold). I don't see how Sony denying this is a "good move for the gamers" at all -- especially when many PS4 gamers would be interested in this.

 

[Plainview]

That would be a decent library/set of Xbox One games as soon as someone connects their new console (EA Access + Games with Gold).

That's an interesting idea. Gamers will already have four full games, minimum, to play. That's a new way to give a game pack-in without actually giving a game pack-in. $399 for an Xbox One with Battlefield 4, Fifa 14, Madden NFL 25 and Peggle 2 advertises like a hell of a deal.

 

[aceattorney]

Sony's fanboys sure are funny.

 

[starseeker]

Your argument is invalid.

I almost feel bad for Obscene Jester.

Nothing hit someone as hard as "Your argument is invalid" comments from nope other than owner of the site,........& Buffy with rocket launcher.

 

[pravus]

Is that what I said? Sony shooting down this awful precedent while being the market leader this gen, will hopefully deter other publishers from trying this bs. The industry is bad enough with all the DLC garbage, I don't want to see game content further segregated with a slew of subscription services.

Thats weird, it sounds like you have EA Access confused with Sonys' awfully s***ty pricing for PSNow.

 

[menace-uk-]

Thats weird, it sounds like you have EA Access confused with Sonys' awfully s***ty pricing for PSNow.

To be fair, Sony are planning to change/or add to that current price scheme. I believe they are adding a subscription model. Going by the current pricing though that year sub could be more than PS4 hardware at launch.

 

[Plainview]

I almost feel bad for Obscene Jester.

Nothing hit someone as hard as "Your argument is invalid" comments from nope other than owner of the site,........& Buffy with rocket launcher.

It wasn't meant as a dig but this deal would have changed nothing on the PlayStation. If you don't want to play a backlog of EA games that's cool. Don't subscribe and carry on as we've done for 40 years, buy the game.

 

[pravus]

To be fair, Sony are planning to change/or add to that current price scheme. I believe they are adding a subscription model. Going by the current pricing though that year sub could be more than PS4 hardware at launch.

Open beta for that tomorrow IIRC.

Until they actually put a subscription model on it, it is literally the most f***ed up rip-off in gaming. I'm not sure why they are beating around the bush or pretending to be testing the waters.. Onlive already set an okay standard for pricing at $9.99/month; unless Sony are going to undercut that (not likely going by their current pricing).

 

[BDaddyK]

I thought I read somewhere that Sony said the pricing for PS Now was up to the publishers?

 

[JinCA]

I don't think either one of these services are going to be successful.

 

[starseeker]

It wasn't meant as a dig but this deal would have changed nothing on the PlayStation. If you don't want to play a backlog of EA games that's cool. Don't subscribe and carry on as we've done for 40 years, buy the game.

Just to be clear, my post isn't suppose to be taken seriously....

But on a serious note, the 'Your argument is invalid' comments seems a bit 'harsh'. I would use 'softer' way to express it like ' I feel that the line of argument is not entirely correct, here is why I say so...."

 

[Obscene Jester]

My argument is perfectly valid, because anyone should realize this is just the beginning of where companies like EA will take subscription models. Expect Ubisoft and Activision to follow suit if this pans out for EA. It may seem benign now, but I see it as potentially the precursor to an ugly future where we will need subscriptions from every publisher in order to get the latest content and features.

 

[MasterMama]

So EA could potentially delay game releases on the PS4/PS3 to give Xbox and their service an advantage. I think with future games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect that could be huge blows for Sony. I think, though, that if this does become an issue for Sony couldn't they always "reconsider" turning down EA and also offer the service?