Sony says EA Access subscription model isn't a good value

[Shawn Knight]

Electronic Arts announced a new subscription service yesterday for the Xbox One that grants members access to some of EA's top games for a monthly or annual fee. In our coverage, I pondered out loud whether or not EA Access would be offered on other platforms or if it was a Microsoft exclusive.

Apparently I wasn't the only one asking that question. Game Informer reached out to Sony for comment and based on their reply, one shouldn't expect to see EA Access show up on the PlayStation 4 anytime soon.

In the statement, Sony said they evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect. The rep added that PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200 percent since the launch of the PS4 which indicates gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services across various devices for one low price.

If that wasn't clear enough, Sony concluded by saying they don't think asking their fans to pay an additional $5 per month for the EA-specific program represents a good value.

In the event you missed yesterday's announcement, EA's new program grants gamers access to four top titles - FIFA 14, Madden NFL 25, Peggle 2 and Battlefield 4 - and a 10 percent discount on purchases of EA digital content for Xbox One through the Xbox Games Store. Subscribers will also get early access to select game demos. Pricing is set at $4.99 per month or $29.99 for an annual subscription.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/57579-sony-says-ea-access-subscription-model-isnt-a-good-value.html

 

[Burty117]

I'm guessing if you stop paying the subscription you lose access to the games you've downloaded and played? If so, it is pretty poor value.

In that list, the only game that's either not broken (unlike BF4) or boring (I'm not exactly a sports fan) is Peggle 2. I'm pretty sure it's considerably cheaper for me to buy it outright and have access to it for at least 10 years.

I know the games change each month or so but the only game I would be interested in would be the Mass Effect series which I don't think EA will re-make for next gen systems

 

[Guest]

This is seriously EA just saying, "give us more money".

I'll never understand the mentality of paying money now to save money later. If you pay 30 dollars a year you can get ten percent off "digital purchases". You'd have to spend 300 dollars in digital purchases to get your money back. I don't see how this is a good deal for anyone. But but, you get demos. Blow me. Blow me soft and long. I don't need demos. I don't need 10% off digital purchases. I don't need Peggle 2. Don't get me wrong, I kinda want Peggle 2 but I'd rather just pay 10 bucks for it.

How about this EA, instead of sitting there trying to figure out all the possible ways you can nickel and dime your customers... How about you just make some good video games? Make some good games and people will give you money.

 

[Guest]

Why would you get the games for free... you pay 4.99 to rent their service...

 

[yukka]

I'm confused. £20 for a year subscription which is around half the price of a new game in UK. If they switch Fifa 14 to 15 close to release then it's worth the money. No one plays Fifa games past the start of the next season so if 14 sticks longer than 15 release in not interested.

 

[Sniped_Ash]

How about this EA, instead of sitting there trying to figure out all the possible ways you can nickel and dime your customers... How about you just make some good video games? Make some good games and people will give you money.

It's a pretty big bummer that EA has driven the SimCity, Medal of Honor, Command & Conquer, and Battlefield brands into the ground. I'm not sure if EA or BioWare is to blame for tarnishing the Dragon Age and Mass Effect brands, but if DA3 is mediocre, then they're done too.

 

[yukka]

This looks like EA working a way of getting "some" money without upsetting the 2nd hand brigade and all subs go to them not GameStop etc once the new copies are sold and the 2nd and 3rd wave of consumers go second hand. The price looks good to me if it's a good catalogue of games. Fifa costs me £30 a year on its own and it's worthless to sell second hand post September.

 

[psycros]

Remember when game companies and publishers released products that usually worked perfectly on launch day and made more than enough money because of it? Remember when beta access was for helping developers polish their code? Remember when demos let you get an idea of how well a game was designed and whether or not you'd like it before you spent money? Remember when actually playing a game was how you got ahead in it? Remember when playing online was optional? Remember when game piracy was something you did because you were poor rather than just incredibly pissed off at a company?

 

[davislane1]

Remember when game companies and publishers released products that usually worked perfectly on launch day and made more than enough money because of it? Remember when beta access was for helping developers polish their code? Remember when demos let you get an idea of how well a game was designed and whether or not you'd like it before you spent money? Remember when actually playing a game was how you got ahead in it? Remember when playing online was optional? Remember when game piracy was something you did because you were poor rather than just incredibly pissed off at a company?

...........

....

............

No, actually. It's been that ****ing long.

 

[BlueDrake]

EA really offers nothing worthwhile, they botch up almost any series they take on. It's a clear no brainer for Sony, that they'd be better off without their silly EA Access. You pay for PS+ and then on top of that, another $5 subscription for EA Access. For basically so little use as they offer so little, that's actually worth putting money on.

If you really want an EA game, buy it but just pass on this sub model. They want to have their hand in many things, just so they can make profits in the end. While their games are launched with so many problems, that why should players really support a company, that's pushed crap on users only to bs them over issues.

The only thing they have over Valve right now is selling games back, being it's not like they own all the games published on their service. EA owns all that's run through Origin, so no surprise they can offer refunds to you. It's not like Valve can't do that, but it would mean a lot of middle ground work. I'll stick with Steam and the wide array of options, to what little EA can even offer in the end. Since all they offer is DLCs to then segregate users, because not everyone's going to fork over for it.

 

[Chazz]

I don't understand the problem here. Is this just people hating EA and forming their opinions off that? This seems like a great deal for anyone who plays more than one of those games. The games change every month and it's only 30 bucks for an entire year. There are people who sell their games to gamestop right after they beat them. This seems like an amazing deal for them.

If anything, wouldn't this hurt sony's bottom line? Instead of getting a cut from every game sold, what would they get under this model?

"The rep added that PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200 percent since the launch of the PS4 which indicates gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services across various devices for one low price."

This is a new service, this comparison is invalid.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I don't understand the problem here.

I'm having an issue picturing the problem as well.

If anything, wouldn't this hurt sony's bottom line? Instead of getting a cut from every game sold, what would they get under this model?

That is probably the only reason Sony opened their mouth to begin with.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

I don't understand the problem here. Is this just people hating EA and forming their opinions off that? This seems like a great deal for anyone who plays more than one of those games. The games change every month and it's only 30 bucks for an entire year. There are people who sell their games to gamestop right after they beat them. This seems like an amazing deal for them.

If anything, wouldn't this hurt sony's bottom line? Instead of getting a cut from every game sold, what would they get under this model?

"The rep added that PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200 percent since the launch of the PS4 which indicates gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services across various devices for one low price."

This is a new service, this comparison is invalid.

I think it's likely that there was an underlying business deal that involved either Sony or EA giving one or the other cash and assets to secure a deal and that terms could not be met by either party but yeah, most of the opinions are from EA haters but I can see their point of views as well though because I class myself as one.

 

[Burty117]

I don't understand the problem here. Is this just people hating EA and forming their opinions off that? This seems like a great deal for anyone who plays more than one of those games. The games change every month and it's only 30 bucks for an entire year. There are people who sell their games to gamestop right after they beat them. This seems like an amazing deal for them.

But for the majority of people who would like to play said games for longer than a year (BF4 for example) then surely it's a waste of money as it would cost more than to simply purchase it outright?

 

[Chazz]

I think it's likely that there was an underlying business deal that involved either Sony or EA giving one or the other cash and assets to secure a deal and that terms could not be met by either party but yeah, most of the opinions are from EA haters but I can see their point of views as well though because I class myself as one.

It's actually why I asked the question, because I despise EA and their business practices. I'll never buy their games again, and this has caused me to miss ME3, dragon age and the newest battlefield, cause I don't wanna deal with their battlefield website/origin requirements. To add to that, I'm a PC gamer...so this wouldn't even apply to me.

Still, I don't see how this is a bad deal for the target audience.

But for the majority of people who would like to play said games for longer than a year (BF4 for example) then surely it's a waste of money as it would cost more than to simply purchase it outright?

That's a valid point, but there is still the option to buy BF4, and you'd have 3 other games that month. IEA makes a lot of games and people enjoy their games, I can imagine me as a teen loving this deal..and my mother as well. EA could F everyone and only add crappy games in the coming months, but I think that's when those pitchforks come out. How would EA ever change when everything they do will be taken bad anyways. How can you notice the effort with eyes shut. I don't like them, but this seems like a decent deal.

 

[S_Brideau]

I already don't buy EA games because of all the bugs and stuff they don't fix before release. Even the time it takes them to fix the stuff after is too long. I haven't bought an EA title since the Mass Effect series, and likely will not until they prove they can release a game with few bugs rather than what they come out now that's filled with bugs. This sub offer isn't for me either as only one of those games would be useful to me if I wanted to play an EA game.

 

[Burty117]

That's a valid point, but there is still the option to buy BF4, and you'd have 3 other games that month. EA makes a lot of games and people enjoy their games, I can imagine me as a teen loving this deal..and my mother as well. EA could F everyone and only add crappy games in the coming months, but I think that's when those pitchforks come out. How would EA ever change when everything they do will be taken bad anyways. How can you notice the effort with eyes shut. I don't like them, but this seems like a decent deal.

Meh, the only people I could see this benefiting are people like my 12 year old brother who sucks at every game he touches and only plays the first level of any game and gives up.

I'm basing my opinion on my group of friends, we all have some kind of console or PC or both we game on.

Anyway everyone I know, all of them buy a game, and in a couple of years time they end up going back to them, Mass Effect1/2/3, BF3/2, Dragon Age1/2, Need for Speed Underground 1/2, Populous, Theme Park World, Command & Conquer to name a few (imagine if multiple companies did this though, Valve, Ubisoft, Bethesda etc...). They would have paid considerably more to keep access to those games over the years, For most people I know, the plan is of bad value.

Now not to be negative too much, EA's future doesn't exactly look great, games are being delayed, getting bad press and the only titles that have a chance of being decent are the currently in development Mass Effect and Battlefront. Don't get me wrong, maybe Hardline and Dragon Age end up actually being quite good, but considering there predecessors were pretty bad. It's hard to imagine EA changing course (or maybe that's why they've been delayed?).

I wonder how DLC works with this service though? Or if enough people take it up they up the price? Time will tell I guess.

 

[Chazz]

For my circle of friends over the years, I'm the only one who kept my old systems and older games. I'll play through a good game many times, I've beaten FF7 5 times, star ocean SSS, castlevania: sotn countless times, as just a few examples. So I understand where you're coming from there, though everyone I know trades their games into gamestop and get ****ing ripped off. I'll ask to replay one of their older games and they never have them anymore. Even if I never replay a game I don't resell it as it's way more worth it to collect dust on my shelf IMHO. For you and your friends, I don't think this is good. For non completionist, people low on money, parents and probably other scenarios this is very useful. I don't think this is a requirement and I think this would save my friends quite a bit of money.

The DLC service says 10% off, though that makes me wonder. How do you buy DLC for a game that you don't own. It would be dumb as hell to have a bunch of DLCs with no games to play. I didn't think of that.

 

[Guest]

If you think it is worth it then get it. If you don't, don't. Their pricing will eventually reflect demand, to maximize profits, which is their duty to their shareholders.

 

[GhostRyder]

The only reason Sony is complaining about this is because its competition. They refused to put it up on their service and now bash it because they want people on their subscription models/buying the games outright to give them more of an overhead.

As far as subscriptions and this being a poor value, its all relative to how you use it. If your playing like a couple games only, then yes a subscription service to all of EA's games is a poor decision. If you are one of the people (Like someone mentioned above) who plays alot of EA's sport games and a ton of the different games in general then it would be more of value to you.

Subscription services can either be a great value, or a horrible value it just all ends up being down to the person buying it and their habits.

Hence why I do not do them...

 

[yukka]

Turns out playstation now is massively expensive according to kotaku. http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/07/31/playstation-now-still-way-expensive

Deus ex for 90 days is 30 dollars. For 90 days. What are Sony smoking.

 

[JRXP2010]

I know is not for everyone, but I think the EA program would be a good fit for me. $60 a year I get to play all these games that are $60 bucks each when new except for peggle 2. I don't play any of the EA games more than a year anyway so this would work out great.

 

[gingerbill]

If only EA spent more time and resource's on making better games instead of thinking of more way's to make money. Subscriptions and season passes for everything. They even trying a subscription for the Sims now , as if selling 15+ DLC wasn't enough.

 

[DAOWAce]

How about this EA, instead of sitting there trying to figure out all the possible ways you can nickel and dime your customers... How about you just make some good video games? Make some good games and people will give you money.

It's a pretty big bummer that EA has driven the SimCity, Medal of Honor, Command & Conquer, and Battlefield brands into the ground. I'm not sure if EA or BioWare is to blame for tarnishing the Dragon Age and Mass Effect brands, but if DA3 is mediocre, then they're done too.

Forgot SWTOR in that list.

That screams of nickel and diming.

 

[Jad Chaar]

I'm guessing if you stop paying the subscription you lose access to the games you've downloaded and played? If so, it is pretty poor value.

In that list, the only game that's either not broken (unlike BF4) or boring (I'm not exactly a sports fan) is Peggle 2. I'm pretty sure it's considerably cheaper for me to buy it outright and have access to it for at least 10 years.

I know the games change each month or so but the only game I would be interested in would be the Mass Effect series which I don't think EA will re-make for next gen systems

The current game lineup is boring. For $5 a month, I expect a huge selection like Netflix ($8 per month for thousands of movies). If they add newer games like Hardline and Battlefront when the come out, it may be a bit more enticing.