Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
September 19, 2014
arrowPress Releases
September 19, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


Sony doesn't think EA Access subscription service is good value
Sony doesn't think EA Access subscription service is good value
July 30, 2014 | By Mike Rose

July 30, 2014 | By Mike Rose
Comments
    10 comments
More: Console/PC, Business/Marketing



Sony has explained why the upcoming EA Access subscription service from Electronic Arts is not coming to PlayStation platforms, stating that the scheme is not good value for money.

EA Access is a subscription service that offers its members a discount on EA digital goods, early access to downloadable trials of EA games and access to a library of EA titles. It's only coming to Xbox One, says EA.

When asked why EA Access is not also coming to PlayStation, a Sony rep told Game Informer, "We 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 compared EA Access to Sony's own PS Plus service, stating, "We donít think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer."

EA plans to charge $5/month or $30 for a year of EA Access membership, while PS Plus costs $9.99/month or $49.99 for the year.


Related Jobs

Blizzard Entertainment
Blizzard Entertainment — Irvine, California, United States
[09.19.14]

Compatibility Analyst
GREE International
GREE International — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
[09.19.14]

Senior Game Designer
Avalanche Studios
Avalanche Studios — New York, New York, United States
[09.19.14]

VFX Artist
SAE Institute
SAE Institute — San Jose, California, United States
[09.19.14]

User Interface Design Instructor










Comments


Marvin Papin
profile image
Anyway, EA is probably just trying to check how much player are gonna paying to play earlier.

Jochen Meckel
profile image
Translation: the service felt too much like a competition for PS Plus, so we just forbid it.
(potentially loosing EA games as PS Plus games might not have helped)

Kinda low even by games industry standards.

Tim Borquez
profile image
Yeah, it does totally seem like a fake reason to stifle competition. But at least their fake reason seems sound.

A monthly subscription to rent only EA games?(I don't think it even includes DLC) And then to play online you need to pay the console's subscription service . . . that isn't good value!

John Maurer
profile image
Why would you want to cannibalize a service, or worse, tag additional services on-top of it so that more money is required from the user to enjoy it? Sony made the right call, and Microsoft again did not.

Game Biz exec's have been trying to push products that produce steady streams of revenue for years, mostly because of the short period of time game industry products have from the introduction to market to there decline to make a profit in single-point sales.

And here we have another, packing in a service on-top of products, its called double-dipping.

It's a money grab, nothing more.

Eric Geer
profile image
I'm kind of glad that Sony blocked this, but it does seem like a blatant stab at shutting down EA because it would compete with PS+.

Although that is my opinion, I do think they should allow it. What does it matter if some customers want to pay $5 a month to gain access to some additional content? I feel like Sony could scrap up some cash from this as well.

Bob Johnson
profile image
Just what we need. Another subscription. Anybody else want a few dollars a month?

Robert Carter
profile image
I dont know that I agree with the "it competes with PSplus" notion. PSplus is now required for PS4, which means to get the EA subscription you have to have PSplus. I think they just dont want to set the trend that each publisher should have its own subscription, and I wouldnt want to see that trend either.

Even where PSplus isnt required it sounds strange. " I can get everything Sony offers, including massive discounts and free games across a plethora of titles, or I can get 10% off just EAs shit." Not a hard choice.

Emeka Enubuzor
profile image
I'm actually happy Sony did this. I really don't want this to be a trend. I barely want to keep up the couple subscriptions I have now. The thought that every publisher would have a subscription service where i have to sign up to get discounts, demos, and old games would be absurd. These dumb costs keep building and building.

If Sony can just unify all that crap all under one umbrella and give me discounts, demos, and old games, from all the publishers(like they're doing), i'm happy.

People keep on comparing this to Netflix, but this is so far from it.

Bart Stewart
profile image
I don't mind paying a subscription for something I use frequently every month. Moving to a monthly subscription was a great improvement over hourly charges back in the day of CompuServe, for example.

But who is going to get that kind of value from any game publisher, whether it's EA, Sony, Valve/Steam, GOG Galaxy, or anybody else?

James Barnette
profile image
Actually I think this totally a case of cock blocking and misdirection on sony's part. This service doesn't compete with PS plus it is in addition to. you guys are forgetting this is a new gen deal not for the PS3 and 360 and on all of the new gen consoles you have to pay to play online. What this prolly came down to is sony not getting their way with EA titles on PS now service which charges ridiculous rates to play games as a service.

Another point and for the most part EA titles are yearly updates anyway. So for football, baseball, hokey and soccer instead of paying like $240 a year. to play them you get them all for $30 on a subscription basically. That sound like a pretty sweet deal to me. I mean I don't really play them but I know lot of people that do.


none
 
Comment: