Should Sony Get EA Access Onto PS4?

Jon from Honest Gaming Reviews brings you his thoughts on whether Sony should bring EA Access onto the PS4

[nX]

No, don't let other publishers come up with similarly stupid subscriptions. Also most EA games are not good enough to justify a monthly payment.

[naruga]

EA access = paying for trash ...Sony guys are clever enough to not let this cheap service spoil their system

[Death]

Why is having a choice bad again? You are not required to subscribe, it's a choice if it is available. There are those out there that don't share your opinion. Why should they suffer for you to be happy?

[Kingthrash360]

Death....nobody is " suffering "
While choice isn't a bad thing, no one is losing sleep for EA access.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I don't agree with the reason behind why you're saying that Sony is not allowing it...

I simply believe that Sony is not allowing it because they don't like the setup of their Network protocol or something that might interfere with their own network..

That's it. I don't really care that much about this topic because the Electronic Arts games I do like I actually want to physically own. They don't really make a lot of games that are just once overs to me, most of the games that I purchase with from Electronic Arts I usually intend to put maybe 100 hours or want to physically own ie Battlefield or Mass Effect.

[nowitzki2004]

I had Origin Access on PC and it was good, but I found myself not playing much on there. So I cancelled before the first month trial expired. Its good for budget gamers, you can pay $5 this month and play a lot of games. I dont need it on PS4, but I am sure some people would love it.

@_-EDMIX-_

Yeah, I guess they arent great to work for.. Like really not good at all. But I dont know, as I have never been an EA associate just gamer. But like you said, when you buy an EA game, they usually give you your moneys worth.

[freshslicepizza]

it should be about giving the consumer choices and let the market decide. there is no possible way to justify paying for ps plus and then turn around and say we dont want ea access because it offers no value or whatever the flavor reason is of the day. if sony really thinks its about value then why does the ps4 now have online play behind a paywall and use free games as some sort of reasoning?

if its trash people wont pay, it really is that simple. if the games on ps plus are so much better then allow the user to decide, very simple. but instead we get arguing because we they are not allowing choice.

[DragonKnight]

@Death: There are such things as bad choices. EA Access would be such a choice. But at the end of the day, it's up to each individual to make that bad choice and hopefully learn from it.

My position on this has changed somewhat from when it originally was an issue due to how Sony is acting with mods on the PS4. Sony is being a bit too controlling for my liking.

[sinspirit]

@Death

Well, Death..

This is one of those things that if it were allowed then more developers would follow suit, and eventually almost every big publisher would be doing the same thing so that they constantly get a steady flow of income from you and even if their games degrade in quality like some of them have, most people are still too lazy or irresponsible to unsubscribe just because they liked some of said developers games in the past. If we keep paying for products that have yet to even been created or simply for older titles it's going to become a huge adoption in the market that everyone will begin doing, alienating the traditional customers with exclusive content and early access, and essentially doing what overpriced and ridiculous examples for season passes do, except for the entire game itself.

We understand. Most of the time having the choice to do something sounds like the right way. But, the average consumer is ruining the honest and simple way we have had it for decades which has yet to have a better way to do it, except for the option to chose digital for conveniences sake.

Edit: And, I should say. If all the big developers did follow suit then millions would have less money to spend on smaller titles as they would automatically be handing the big developers big money every month while they wait for new releases.

[freshslicepizza]

@DragonKnight
"But at the end of the day, it's up to each individual to make that bad choice and hopefully learn from it."

sometimes we dont have a choice like season passes and other things of that nature but for now ea acess is just an option. so yes i agree.

"My position on this has changed somewhat from when it originally was an issue due to how Sony is acting with mods on the PS4. Sony is being a bit too controlling for my liking."

yes they are and we keep seeing fans try and validate the decisions sony makes. sony used to be the pioneer when it came to backwards compatablity but over the years they have gradually goteen away from it to now where the ps4 doesnt even support ps1 games. instead we have services like playstation now trying to bridge that gap.

there were tons of things microsoft did (and still do) that also questioned how they went about it. they had netflix behind a paywall at one point. but sony pushed them to where they too now offer free games on gold but both parties still persists now in charging to play others, that to me isn't right. not when you pay for so many games where the value is hidden now with another fee to gain access.

sure many can question about if ea games are even any good, thats why we have a thing called choices. i will try ea access on the pc and if i dont like it i can quit in afew months. on xbox live and ps plus that would not be so easy to do when many games require it and i would lose a lot more than just free games to play.

[thisismyaccount]

At D.th
Because Sony and we already have to deal with shaite like this here :
https://www.reddit.com/r/PS...

[n4rc]

most classic n4g response ever!

[Petebloodyonion]

and why Ea access = paying for trash?

[Rachel_Alucard]

@Death

Because EA access directly competes with PS+ and giving the consumer the choice to spend money nearly always results in them spending money. By allowing the free market the option to support the service in turn is too risky too allow as it will spread to other publishers who will in turn formulate similar paid services in reaction to the changing market that will end with putting up a wall that prevents just buying a game but having to go through a service first. The free market is incapable of stopping itself from buying obvious garbage, a while ago etsy banned the sale of "Healing stones" and those other non-medicinal chi based restoratives that literally do nothing. While a choice could have been an option, sometimes there are things out there that people shouldn't be buying regardless if they have a choice or not. The majority people don't know any better most of the time.

[Jon_Targaryen]

You are talking trash and you know it. I wish I could slap some sense into you. Dont diss it until you try it.

[XanderZane]

Instead Sony give gamers PSNow so they can rebuy or rent games they already own. That's a smarter move right?

@Kingthrash360
No one is losing sleep over PSNow either, yet it's still a choice. lol!! Sony also removed the optical out on the PS4 Slim. Another choice no longer available. Sony want gamers to have only one choice; theirs.

[GamingIVfun]

I don't think anyone is really missing it on PS4, I have a Xbox One S and a very good PC, don't have it on them either. Only ones that seem to care are fanboys mostly.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

Get EA Access for what? Most of the games it offers now are under $10 or less.
EA Access = Waste of Money

[lastking95]

Getting 24hrs total play time of new! Upcoming! Unreleased! Just released! Games and 6 months- 14 month old games continue to be added to a collection of titles, plus discounts on any ea game or content you purchase = waste of money?

Damn wtf you call value then? Lol 10x better than gold and ps+ if online play didnt require a sub.
vvvv @rider exactly dragon age inquisition got goty and I was desperate to try it but didnt want to pay . Got a free 1 month sub to access and got to play it (wasnt my goty lol) along with plants vs zombie gw.....this game is surprising good (better than dragon age imho) my most played game in the vault. Got to play madden 16 (which had just release) it was great! You cant hate on access, in any way. Even the price $30/yr or 5 a month Its a steal in all honestly, I dont even buy ea games anymore, why would you? You get them all with your sub.

[The 10th Rider]

Yeah, it's really not a waste of money. I could buy the Dragon Age games for PC and might get the whole lot for $20 . . . Or I could subscribe for $10 and beat them all and other games. A month or two subscription is a great way to play games you passed on the first time around, but wouldn't mind playing through for cheap.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

@lastking95

Amazon Prime discounts pre-orders to $50, thousands of movies and music. EA Access offers old sports games and online multiplayer focused games with dying servers and dwindling populations. Amazon Prime is a good value, EA Access is not.

[ifistbrowni]

yes, the service pays for itself if you buy digitally.

I bought Battlefield 1, Madden and NHL digitally. Additionally, I bought packs to boost my ultimate team. In all, I would've saved well over the subscription price AND I'd have access to games like Dragon Age and Peggle (games I never bought for PS4).

Anyone who says no is likely just Sony sheep. You also get free early access, so it could save you money in different ways (planned to buy a game, try it, it sucks, don't buy it).

Andromeda is likely going to hit early access and every ps4 owner will be crying while Xbox subscribers are giving their early impressions around the web.

[InTheZoneAC]

you bought madden/nfl/battlefield packs

/thread

[mcstorm]

If your spot on. Ea access is a great price at £30 a year or even less if you look online. My friend who is not big into gaming just got a Xbox one and said he did not have much cash until he gets paid in Feb could he borrow some games. Told him I had gone digital this gen but he likes sports games. Explained to him about ea access and right away he signed up for it and has the games he would of looked at getting anyway in FIFA, NBA and NHL as he dose not see the point that of spending £40+ on a game he will not play so much. For me it works as I get games like bf FIFA ect and getting a discount for being a member as well as trying valt games I maybe would not of picked up. Yes it's not for everyone but having a choice is what it's all about.

[Zeref]

battlefield, titanfall, mass effect are not good enough?

[ApocalypseShadow]

Sony might have thought it was not as much value as they already offered games, discounts, trials, etc already and two subscriptions cuts into Sony's offerings from themselves, third parties and Indie companies.

In my opinion,EA's main intention originally was to help control the used market or cut it out entirely with Microsoft. They most likely thought Microsoft would be the leader this gen based off of last gen. And,they were one of the original backers of the failed trade in policies and 24 hour check ins that no gamer wanted, so they found another way to cut into used sales.
http://www.theverge.com/201...

**On the subject of used games, Microsoft says "game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers," and that the company "does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games." However, publishers can opt in or out of game resales and are free to set up transfer fees with retailers. **

Once that didn't work, EA came up with EA Access since they already had a partnership with Microsoft. Are they offering new games? No. They are offering old games for a price each month or for the whole year. Not only is it cutting into the trade in business, it devalues the trade in. When I worked long ago as a game store manager, EA's games, especially sports,would lose value fast because of the amount. We even had to limit how many we took in from their games. But EA got no money from a used game. Now they they can through Access. Discounts are just a lure to get you to buy their new games. Which again, will lose value. Creating a cycle.

One of the reasons why the article fails is that it downplays and devalues new Indie digital games.

**The fact that Sony feel that their PS+ service can match up to it? Sorry, but no. The games that are presented each month with PS+ are simply dire at best 99% of the time. Indie games which most people probably wouldn’t bat an eye lid at.**

....SAYS YOU! Some of those Indie games are fun and innovative and much better than EA's clockwork cycle of the same games in new packaging that is now missing core elements that you have to buy in season pass or dlc to make it complete. Since I'm an old school gamer, I could go on on how EA destroyed many companies and developers over the years, ran franchises into the ground, and milk their properties for extra revenue, star wars for an example, but I won't even go there.

I hate EA or actually their policies that more than try to fleece gamers wallets. So EA Access has no value to me whatsoever. But I know that there are those who do like their games. Or should I say, the companies they bought to make their games and the game engines like frostbite that they really wanted.

[Death]

I don't believe everyone shares your opinion on indie games. There is nothing wrong with offering gamers the choice to subscribe. The only ones that could get hurt by this is Sony since it could detract from their own subscription services. Gamers would benefit though and that is what we should all be looking at unless we work for Sony or Microsoft.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Death, the games are old. And EA knows that. They make no money from retailers on trade in of their old games, but they do from Access. They are the ONLY company I know who's making money on old games. The only one.

And there's no worrying about disc scratches, instructions, cases, storage, etc like GameStop. It's instant digital money directly to them which I bet Microsoft gets a share of.

Indy games are NEW. Not just from Sony, but from EVERY developer. Sony makes money, every other company makes money. And it gets games out there and noticed when some of them otherwise would not. A lot of the reason gamers are playing Rocket League was not only that it was fun, but free with PS Plus.I bought it as I didn't have a PS4 yet because my girls' son had it. I wouldn't have known about Bros Force, until I got it free. Reminds me of the days of Contra, Guerilla War, Ikari warriors, etc. It's awesome. And not just EA's games. I got Grimm Fandango for free. And I was going to buy it.

Some may not like Indie games, but it doesn't mean they're bad. Entitled gamers just expect to get AAA games each month for free that cost way more than $5 month. I can understand the disappointment from PS3 days, but some aren't being realistic about it.

[Aloren]

@Apocalypse Shadow "Death, the games are old. And EA knows that. They make no money from retailers on trade in of their old games, but they do from Access. They are the ONLY company I know who's making money on old games. The only one. "

Well, Nintendo is selling 1 nes game for the price a month of EA Access; which includes rather old games but also includes Battlefront, Mirror's Edge Catalyst, or Unravel. Also, the instant access to the whole EA Access Library is really not a bad deal compared to other subscription services...I mean it would take a few months before xbox live gold or ps plus offer a comparable library to a new subscriber.

[DragonKnight]

"Entitled gamers just expect to get AAA games each month for free that cost way more than $5 month."

It's entitled to want what we had on PS3?

[The 10th Rider]

@Apocalypse Shadow,
"Death, the games are old. And EA knows that. They make no money from retailers on trade in of their old games, but they do from Access. They are the ONLY company I know who's making money on old games. The only one."

Devs make money on all sorts of digitally sold games through steam, Xbox's marketplace, Nintendo's eShop and the Playstation Store. Also, many of the games are less than 3 years old and can still be bought at retail.

[Death]

@Apoc,

Sony makes money on "old games" with PSNow and to a lesser degree PS+ and through the online store. Microsoft sells their back catalog through Xbox Marketplace and Nintendo sells theirs as well. I don't buy many EA games at launch, for me EA Access is an incredible value. If you don't feel the same, the good news is you don't have to subscribe. Each of us can decide and make the choice we believe is best. When you don't have that choice, it affects those that see the value in the service.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Thing is Aloren, Sony doesn't want it. It's case closed. We can disagree on it, but if Sony doesn't want ONE company creating their own service on their platform, they have every right. Let EA create their own console if it's a problem.

And as we have seen, when one company creates something, the others follow suit. Dlc, micro transactions, season passes, paying for online play, etc. And gamers want companies to splinter off and create their own access vaults? Really? Because you know Activision, Ubisoft, Capcom, Square, etc would create similar services that would make things even worse.

Also, on Xbox one, ask yourself why EA is the only one allowed? It's been over 2 years since August 2014 when EA Access launched. But no other company has that service. Why?

Because EA most likely has a previous contract and partnership with Microsoft or there would be more already. And that had to do with used game sales and how to profit from them. EA found a way to profit off of old games that cuts into the trade in business.

Again, ask yourself why. Square, Activision, Ubisoft, etc have plenty games they could use to start an access service on Xbox one. But only EA has the service. Why?

[Aloren]

Hmm ... ? The thing is I'm not talking about whether Sony wants it or not, or why other developers don't do it. I don't really care. I'm just replying to the "EA is the only company making money on old games" when their games are not all old and when other companies are much greedier when it comes to old games than EA is.

But anyway, see, I'm in no need for new games considering I've got hundreds in my backlog, and no time to play them, but If I had none and wanted choice when I get a new console, I'd prefer to pay 5 bucks to EA for 30 games I already know are available for me to play right now than subscribe to PS Plus or Gold and hope I like next month's games. And pushing it further, I don't think it would necessary be a bad thing for other developers to do it. I mean come on, you pick a new developer each month and get to play dozens of AAA for 5 bucks, you can't deny that can offer great value to some players .
Just cause it's not meant for us doesn't mean it's bad.

edit :(Also, I just checked, I happen to own 27 games out of the 38 Origin Access offers on PC. That means I'm never gonna subscribe. That also means it offers 27 games I thought were worth buying to people who don't own them).

[ApocalypseShadow]

Fair enough. But it's a little strange that EA is the only company with a service on Xbox. If Microsoft was open to this type of idea, then there would be more services on their platform. More money for everybody and gamers benefit right? But only EA has a service. Activision could put all their previous CODs, Turtles, Transformers, Tony hawk, etc in a vault on Xbox one. But that's not happening. 2 years since EA started theirs have given Activision plenty of time.

If it's making money for EA and Microsoft, then it should work for other companies. But that's not the case. Only EA, the largest third party publisher has a service.

Something lies underneath that we cannot see between them.

[freshslicepizza]

@Apocalypse Shadow
"Thing is Aloren, Sony doesn't want it. It's case closed. We can disagree on it, but if Sony doesn't want ONE company creating their own service on their platform, they have every right. Let EA create their own console if it's a problem."

its not case closed thouigh. it only will be if everyone shares your lack of pushing them. you should be talking as a consumer and not coming up with excuse after excuse why they wont allow it.

"And as we have seen, when one company creates something, the others follow suit. Dlc, micro transactions, season passes, paying for online play, etc. And gamers want companies to splinter off and create their own access vaults? Really? Because you know Activision, Ubisoft, Capcom, Square, etc would create similar services that would make things even worse."

make things worse? people are already complaining about the ps plus game choices so as you can see limiting your options certainly isn't going to help.

"Also, on Xbox one, ask yourself why EA is the only one allowed? It's been over 2 years since August 2014 when EA Access launched. But no other company has that service. Why?"

they have already come out and said they asked sony and they are still waiting. again you keep shifting the blame from sony.

"Because EA most likely has a previous contract and partnership with Microsoft or there would be more already. And that had to do with used game sales and how to profit from them. EA found a way to profit off of old games that cuts into the trade in business. "

it's on the pc and ea has their own store and so does microsoft, so please stop the excuses.

"Again, ask yourself why. Square, Activision, Ubisoft, etc have plenty games they could use to start an access service on Xbox one. But only EA has the service. Why?"

probably because they dont see it as a viable option right now and ea already has a foot on the pc with their own store. ubisoft also has games on ea access.

you have no option on your ps4. sony is telling you what games you can have all while leveraging those games to cover online play as a fee. this war of mine is being offered on ps plus, its already available on ea access. so tell me again how another option hurts you for a service that is less than ps plus and is giving you a choice while the other one uses online play as a paywall with 'free' games to cover that up?

[ShowanW]

@ApocShadow...

other companies cant follow suite because they don't have a diverse enough portfolio to do so..

EA Access, has FPS, Action, Sports, RPG's, and family friendly games...

Ubisoft, Square Enix, etc don't have enough diversity for anyone to jump on. and those companies know it..
Blizzard Activision would be about the only company who could match EA Access in terms of library...

[lastking95]

You said it yourself, THEYRE THE LARGEST 3RD PARTY DEVELOPER! Lol besides ea i doubt any other dev come out with enough games per year to support a service like access. Ea is putting out 6+ games a year minimum.

[KillBill]

"When I worked long ago as a game store manager, EA's games, especially sports,would lose value fast because of the amount."

"I hate EA or actually their policies that more than try to fleece gamers wallets."

So you worked for a game store that bought and resold old games at ridicules mark-ups. (which has been talked of recently as being the bane of gaming) And then claim EA policies fleece gamers? Really?

[freshslicepizza]

ea access is also on the pc so i dont really understand this used market reasoning. even naughty dog said they dont like the used market so lets not even go there.

ea access also supports indie style games like unravel and sony is quite capabale ofd supporting indie games while still allowing its users to choose ea access.

as a consumer you should be vocal about choice, not some dictatorship and allowing them to feed you with their own percepetion of value. if they really cared about your opinion they wouldn't be charging to play online.

[Aenea]

I don't see the point of EA Access since what it offers is rather minimal to me.

- The games in the vault are old and if I was interested in them I probably already have them
- Digital prices are still higher than physical even with the EA discount
- The 10% discount on DLC and SP is nice tho
- The early access is neat as well but is rather short

I don't buy lose DLC, I usually go for the SP for a game I want DLC for anyways (think Battlefield and Battlefront), those are 50 a pop, so I would save 5 on those with the 10% discount, say there are 2 of them a year (there aren't) then I save 10 a year, but a yearly sub costs 30 so doesn't seem like such a good deal either.

Then the only thing left is the early access/try before buying, not sure I would want to pay money for that...

[n4rc]

for $30 a year, it gives me a bunch of games i wouldnt normally buy outright.. not to mention the first year was paid for simply by trading in my copy of bf4.. second year mostly paid for by trading sunset overdrive (not that they offer it, but that one game can pay for the whole year)

the value is insane... but like anything else, even the greatest deal isnt worthwhile if you arent interested in the product..

[Jon_Targaryen]

You're so ignorant. You do know that BF 4 on EA Access is the premium version. So you dont need to buy any DLC, right? Plus they lots of game available every other month... Like Mass Effect 1-3, unravel, NFS 2015, Dead Space, Battlefront ect ect ect... You're just hating because Sony already said they dont want to do it,

[Aenea]

Maybe it's you who is ignorant?

It's not worth it to me and that's my opinion.

When did BF4 Premium get added? the game has been out for over 3 years, if you were interested in it you would already have gotten it, same goes with the Premium pass. If I want to play a game I buy it and not wait one or more years in the hope it's gonna be 'free' with some subscription....

[uth11]

Make a deal with EA to put the games on PS Now instead of making us pay for yet another service

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Sony said it's not a good value for their customers. So clearly it's not a good value to anyone...end of story....they said it so it's fact.... /s

[Yohshida]

#4theplayers

[ILostMyMind]

#4theplayers indeed. Sony is protecting its users from falling into a trap. Leave it as it is. Whoever wants EA Access that go to XBO.

[Yohshida]

More Options is always better. If you dont think its a good deal, dont get it. Vote with your Wallet. But I just dont want features like that stripped away from Sony/MS because they have a competing service.

[SilverDemon]

what would stop EA from making it required to play online??(just like ps plus)
right now, Sony is the only ones who stopping them

can you trust EA? cuz I sure cant
if that actually happens what will stop ubisoft,warner bros. , Activision/blizzard, Square Enix,bandai namco,capcom,take2, sega..etc to have their OWN subscription service to play online

having an option is nice, but for how long will it remain an option before it becomes a requirement?

[rocketpanda]

Because no software publisher is stupid enough to pull that off to such a scale. They might be greedy but fragmenting the market with so many individual services will probably put their titles in decline. We have enough childish arguments about console wars, we don't need publisher wars next. The backlash would be massive and I think their shareholders wouldn't want to chance it. Sony and MS stupidly charge for online because it's their hardware also and know they can get away from with it, but at least users get online access to all online games regardless if it's first or third party.

[SilverDemon]

Srupid enough to do that?

Like putting Microtransaction in 60$AAA games?
or putting online pass code in games so you can't lend it to a friend?
Ir maybe rising the price of games from 50$ to 60$ (thry also tried to rise it again in EU)
Or make day-one dlc?

EA done all these first and other publishers followed

If anyone can do that its EA

Could that be the reason why sony refused ea access?? After all, ms seems like they are going to pc route so they won't mind xbox getting harmed but PlayStation is sony's bread and butter so they will do anything to protect it

Again, you can never trust EA

[n4rc]

Dude.. you can't honestly believe the crap you just wrote..

What if game publishers start requiring your first born child to play mp? We can all make ridiculous statements with no basis

Your other examples all have issues.. who decided microtransactions can't be in a full game? It's about content and value, not how much you paid for the base game..

And you mean the pass that prevented the game being sold 20 times and that doesn't exist anymore?

And inflation isn't specific to the gaming Industry.. everything costs more, why do you expect a video game not to?

Could it be Sony has their own service they'd rather sell you? Nah.. they aren't in the industry to make money.. lol

[SilverDemon]

So you believe that EA won't try to screw us over?

Also, "who decided microtransactions can't be in a full game?"

Really dude?. When I bought a "full" game I expect to get the FULL game

The fact that a gamer is defending microtransaction in full games is making me loss faith in this industry

Microsoft and Sony already require subscription to use theur services.why won't ea do the same? If you thi k this is a ridiculous then you are really naive and dumb

If you bought a product, you have the full right to sell it and a company should stip you (why did gamers backlashed at Microsoft when they revealed x1?) It takes away your right

Funny how EA always the ones who start to rise the prices

[Jon_Targaryen]

WTF are you talking about?!?!?!?! EA Access is basically PS+ but with their own catalog of games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SilverDemon]

@jon
Ps plus started as an optional service that gives you free games every month on ps3 now it's required to plah online on ps4

EA Access is no different

[n4rc]

yup.. i dont believe that..

full game was a poor choice of words... you pay for the game as it is.. adding extra content later doesnt apply as its extra content.. on top of the game you paid for..

nothing wrong with microtransactions provided they dont harm the game.. cosmetic items etc.. again, extra stuff.. not mandatory.

of course they charge to use their services... nothing is free especially the infrastructure needed to supply xbl/psn.. EA charges too, you buy their games or now sub to their service... $30 a year to them is better then $0 from the used game market where these titles now reside.

come back when you cant buy their games on their own... until then its an idiotic discussion based on nothing..

and for the record, you never own a piece of software... you own a piece of plastic and a licence to use whats on it..

[ThatGuyDart]

I personally couldn't care less for EA Access and I haven't seen or heard any PlayStation fans say they want EA Access on the PS4. It's not like Backwards Compatibility where there are at least a vocal minority of folks in the PS community that are still asking Sony to implement it. EA Access however gets no requests.

I also find it interesting that literally no other 3rd party publishers have followed suit and copied this subscription model from EA. This leads me to believe that EA Access doesn't make as much money as EA and others thought it would make. I mean anybody who pays even a little attention to the gaming community knows that it's a copycat industry when it comes to trends. If EA Access was making money hand over fist for EA, you can bet your soul Activision Ubisoft and others would quickly follow suit.

So to answer the question? If Sony could get EA Access on PS4 that would be good as it really does no harm for me and others who don't care about it. At the same time, I'm not about to go ape crazy with a pitchfork demanding Sony to work something out with EA. I just don't care.

[joeorc]

Exactly, the fact it has been going over two years now and yet, other big publishers have not followed suit makes you really Question the validity of the service if other companies would see if such a service was really that sought after service....

It's ironic, that the Majority of people who are asking for EA games service for to be put on PlayStation, seems to mainly be from the PC & Xbox centric gamer crowd...

As you stated if you go over to the official PlayStation forums & other gaming sites...many PlayStation gamers as well as Nintendo gamers are not really demanding that such a service release for their platforms...

There seems to be no real need for such a service because there is no real drive from consumers really wanting the service as it is....if such a service was a big draw for any platform Subscriptions would be through the roof...

At some point many may infact get burned out or turned off of so many Subscriptions... For instance...

There a Subscription from your iSP
Than there a Subscription for online playing through some console gaming platforms...

Than there is a Subscription for movie streaming : Netflix, Hulu etc.
Than there is a Subscription for live broadcasting TV : Via your cable Provider be that through , land line cable, satalite, or live Broadcasting streaming TV over the Internet & mobiles.. PlayStation Vue or At&t, or Sling TV.

Than there is streaming Game services on top of all the other Subscription based services like PlayStation Now

I think many are seeing that there is already so many Subscription based services on top of more Subscriptions on top of more that maybe many see there already is enough Subscription based services being offered already..on.PlayStation!

[lastking95]

If those subs are saving you money, and not being forced on you there's no such thing as too many subscriptions lol. Thats like complain there's too many games or too many coupons lol

Hmm i can buy this $60/$30 game
or
I can play $5 a month/ $30 a year and get that same game plus a ton of more games+ 24hours of game time of upcoming games......hmm tough choice lol

Is garden warfare 2 any good? Im bout to go pay $30+ for it.....oh wait its in the acces vault so i get it free!(get the point?) Service pays for itself and then some.

[n4rc]

you must not have been here when the service launched... many ps4 fans were questioning why they couldnt get this service..

and what publisher has the catalog of EA? they pump out more games then anyone and many drop quickly in price as they are yearly franchises.. its viable for EA but i dont really see who else could do it.. maybe ubisoft

activision likes charging full price for as long as they possibly can so they are out..

you are right.. it may not be much use to you.. but its hard to justify the comments saying they dont even want it available to them.

[sullynathan]

Yes

[SH1ELD]

No, Cause it may end up being the inferior version.

[DragonKnight]

*cough*SkryimandFallout4onPS4* cough*

[Blastoise]

Last EA game I actually bought was Battlefield 3 in 2011, so I can live without it. Wouldn't say no to the choice though

[The 10th Rider]

Yeah, a couple month subscription would cost ya $10 and allow you to try the titles you've passed on. The only EA game I've bought in years was Battlefield One, but I got EA Access (on PC) for a month and beat the Dragon Age series because I wasn't interested in some RPGs to play. It's not something I would keep a constant subscription to, but a month or two a year, or a $30 year for someone who really wants it, wouldn't be a bad deal.

[captainexplosion]

EA Access is a wonderful deal at just $30 a yr. Not just for the free games but the free rentals for brand new games & getting the community up for online games (which doesn't just benefit Access members). I think the reason Sony doesn't allow it is because they are planning on adding newer games to Now at some point.

[Yohshida]

its a great deal and for 3$, you can play a lot of games in one month. the yearly sub is half as cheap as a new game, which just is a killer deal with games like Star Wars Battlefront, PVZ:GW2, NFS, Mirrors Edge and a lot more in it.

[Lonnie18]

Nope

[DashArrivals]

NO. The vast majority of PS players just don't give a flying crap about EA Craccess or PS Now

[ILostMyMind]

It's a shame someone to support the idea of ​​signing up for games. Imagine if each company decides to do the same. We paid PSN/Live for multiplay, not for old games. So, no.

[n4rc]

or you could just go buy them one at a time the traditional way...

[showtimefolks]

No because EA games are not worth the subscription

Personally speaking I would like backwards compatibility on ps4 because it's a much better feature

[Artemidorus]

EA Access is only good for those who enjoy the games myself personally it's one big rip off so Yes open it up to the millennials

[Dragonscale]

With EA access my PS4 would be complete /s.

Apart from Battlefront which I picked up for 8 bux pre-owned for the vr x-wing mission I haven't bought an ea game in 3 years.

EA sucks.

[SilverDemon]

If sony allows it, how long do you think EA will wait till it becomes required to play online?(look at what happened to ps plus)
xbox got its own EA subscription and PC got that too

they cant force it on those 2 platforms but allows ps4 to play games without subscription (the backlash will be huge)BUT they can if they force it on all platforms at once

I cant trust EA to not screw us over so I dont want to give them the chance

[DragonKnight]

EA is not in the position to do that. Not with their level of greed. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo hold Platform power over them. EA is not about to go full PC and lose 3/4 of the money they could be making by trying to force anyone's hand.

[SilverDemon]

Really?cuz they had the power to rise games prices from 50$ to 60$
They had the power to make games required online pass to play online (so you can't give it to a friend)
And they had the power to add microtransactions to 60$ AAA games
And they had the power to make day-one dlc

[DragonKnight]

"Really?cuz they had the power to rise games prices from 50$ to 60$"

No they didn't. They tested waters that gamers let them swim in instead of drowning, everyone else followed suit. And also, I don't know where you've been but, games have been higher than $60 since the SNES days so, it's nothing new.

"They had the power to make games required online pass to play online (so you can't give it to a friend)"

No they didn't. They had that power with their own games. Again, tested waters they didn't drown in.

"And they had the power to add microtransactions to 60$ AAA games "

That was Microsoft.

"And they had the power to make day-one dlc"

Again, no they didn't.

You don't seem to have any facts straight.

[SilverDemon]

Yeah, they tested the water and gamers allowed them because alot of sales comes from casuals who eill buy fifa and madden every year (guess what games started to have microtransactions?)

Sony tested the water with ps plus as an OPTIONAL service on ps3 and eventually they turned it to requirement

EA Access is no different, if it comes to ps4 it will required to play online. The will tast it on casuals first on fifa and madden (just like microtransactions) and come with stupid excuse like "we need money for the servers (like if the 60$ isnt enough) and later expand it to their other games (just like what happened with microtransactions)

[Hendog1981]

EA access is great and should be on PlayStation. 10 hours of battlefront was all needed to know it was a lackluster pile of a cash grab game.

[Dragonscale]

Didn't need ea access to realise that. Tbh that pretty much sums up all ea games lately.

[EyeAmTJ]

Why? Where were u whe nSony said they didn't want or need EA Access on their console because they have PSNow

[Muzikguy]

I say no. We don't need EA access. I've learned quite a bit as I've gotten older and one of those many things is that while having options isn't a bad thing, there actually does come a point where it IS a bad thing and can harm you. People don't like to think this way though. That's another thing I've learned. Usually if you're in disagreement with the masses, you're probably right. The masses want easy and cheap. The masses don't care for too many things or have an actual fondness of them. They "consume" so fast that all they want is more. Then the more they get, the more they realize that they didn't really want the stuff. This is why I don't feel like constantly giving things away for free or dirt cheap is a good thing. It devalues your product.

Anyway, I'm not here to cast judgement on anyone I just feel like it's no loss not having EAA on the PS4. I don't want to see any type of subscription model for games or to give a company the opportunity to call this "the future of gaming"

[lastking95]

You must hate gamefly and netflix lol

[Muzikguy]

Actually Netflix is getting bad. They're not offering nearly as many movies as they used to and going for a more "content creator" approach. Netflix originals may be decent but that's not why I'd subscribe. I wouldn't have it myself, but the wife wants it. Gamefly is ok since you're just renting games. I don't feel he need to play that many that often so I don't Gamefly. I go to my local video store if I want to rent something.

I don't feel like either one of those can be compared to EAA. They're not the same

[Liqu1d]

Don't care either way, I won't be subscribing to it.

And can Xbox guys stop talking about "choice", you didn't care about "choice" last gen. Sony & MS don't care about "choice" unless it benefits them.

[Jgw]

It was great for a few months but like everything gets old quick it's worth it for £20 for a year.

[lastking95]

Smfh ea sells most on ps lol, ea access is the best value in gaming atm in all honesty, why TF......would anyone be against it? Smdh you ppl.

This gen everyone has an opinion and preference but 1 thing undebaitable is ea access being a great service (me defending ea, 3 years ago i would slap some if they told me id be defending them lol) I don't even buy ea games anymore because of it. What's the point when I get it free with a $30 sub?

[King_Lothric]

I wouldn't pay for it so no.

[Notwithrocksteady]

So for $30 a year you get all these games for free.
Star Wars Battlefront
Battlefield 4
Battlefield Hardline
Dead Space
Dragon Age: Inqusition
EA Sports UFC
FIFA 14
FIFA 15
FIFA 16
Madden NFL 15
Madden NFL 16
Madden NFL 25
NBA Live 15
NBA Live 16
NHL 15
NHL 16
Need for Speed
Need for Speed Rivals
Peggle 2
Plants vs. Zombies
Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare
Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare 2
Rory McIlroy PGA Tour
SSX
Titanfall
Unravel
Plus all the discounts and early access.
Have fun with less choices if that makes you happy, but I'm glad I play on the console with choices.

[Mulando]

you totally forgot the xbox 360 BC titels (like all 3 mass effect games).
Well, EA Access led me to the point, I no longer buy EA titles, because sooner or later they are included in ea-access. Also you get 10h with the full-verison of the game. That is more than enough to decide wether you migth buy the title or not.
The good thing about EA-access, you can subscribe it for 25€/$30 a year, and than unsubscribe after that time. As soon you reactivate your account, you get all games that were added to the vault.

but btw, there were also offerings for EA-Access members to get DLCs free. I've got all battlefield 4/hardline DLCs for free.

[SaveFerris]

It's nice that Xbox gamers have the choice, but personally, I don't much care for any of those games on that list. The only EA title I'm interested in is Mass Effect Andromeda.
I wish we had BC on PS4 though, having to unpack and hook up my PS3 every time I want to play some of my backlog is a bit of a chore.

[Notwithrocksteady]

The reason so many PlayStation gamers arent demanding it it's because they know it's a lost cause anyways. They don't get a say in what the company does like Xbox gamers do with Xbox. we want something we asked for and we get it eventually. If anyone has a problem with more features and choice, then they deserve to have limited features and choice.

[MasterCornholio]

"They don't get a say in what the company does like Xbox gamers do with Xbox. we want something we asked for and we get it eventually."

I have to disagree there when it comes to EA Access. Your acting like Xbox fans wanted a service like EA Access before it was even announced and that isn't true. EA simply offered a service that no one was asking for and consumers decided to accept it. This isn't like backwards compatibility which is something everyone wanted since the launch of the XB1.

Also as for people asking for things and getting them well that happened on both systems. Many of the games and features that the PS4 gets is due to feedback from PlayStation gamers. The List is an example of Sony listening to gamers. Even Nitnendo listen to their fans to some extent by producing games based off the franchises that they love.

[rocketpanda]

So there is so much shouting here about not wanting some old games from EA on a sub service but the same people are crying about not having backwards compatibility to play old games.

Just say you hate EA and be honest. I could careless about the service being on PS or not, I just find the multiple comments about hating EA and justifications for it amusing. Where was everyone with their pitchforks when Sony made it mandotory to have a psn+ sub if you want to game online? Oh nevermind...f**k EA right.

[joab777]

Ever since declaring themselves as the console for gamers, they have taken a rather odd stance on many issues. It's a simple if each company makes all the right choices for a bit and then reverts and allows the other to step forward. MS was great last gen and the new went wayy out there with the announcement of the X1. Sony took their playbook with the PS4. Ms responded by hiring Phil and doing everything they could to entice gamers back. In the meantime Sony has fought back against this, against mods and more. Their 1st party games are second to none and it has worked, but they need to loosen the reigns on some key issues before it becomes a problem!

[MYSTERIO360]

Yes, its an optional service if you don't like it you don't have to pay for it

[munchmiller]

Love how these companies keep, ever so slowly, pushing everything towards digital delivery and subscription, and the masses keep following along like the brain dead morons they are.

Why is choice bad in this case? Easy. It's bad when it promotes this type of garbage that tries to usher out the last traces of any ownership in this ever worsening hobby. As more and more people become accustomed to owning nothing, and essentially having to continuously pay monthly forever to these companies.

I can't imagine a company out there who would not prefer a steady income of monthly subscription money, as opposed to 1 or 2 week sales burst windows whenever releasing a new game. The problem with that, is that in the end, it's the customer that loses.

You don't try to slap people in the face with change like MS did with their original XOne reveal. You slowly and carefully conform them to a new way to a new system until the majority looks at those who actually want to own their games with disbelief and wonder. Oh wait, that's almost happening already these days. Ya, pretty scary already.

EA Access / Origin Access (or any other mutation of the name they come up with) can burn in a fire, before other publishers start following suit.

Keep in mind however, Sony does not bar this from PS4 for the sake of any type of customer protection or anything either. It's obviously so there's no competition with their own "rent forever" plans in motion.

[Silly gameAr]

How this thread will go: Xbox owners acting like its the best thing ever, and PS owners are missing out on something amazing. PS owners saying that it's unneeded, and just takes up space because it's nothing but EA games. My feelings are meh either way. It doesn't seem like PS owners are hurting by not having it.

[yeahright2]

I could take it or leave it. Honestly in the state it's in, I'd never use it.

[BigGamersSmallTalk]

Since when is more choice bad? EA Access is an absolutely incredible value that Sony turned down for every PS4 owner. No consideration given aside from their own bottom line.
Tell you what, the $30 a year for the quality of games in the Vault, the early access, the discounts, is far, FAR greater than what Sony offers for DOUBLE that price with PS+.

[wutang4ever]

NO thx, Pass because It's EA

[_LarZen_]

Yes! I have it on PC and it's great! The content is slowly growing and I think it's absolutely worth it.

[SideNote]

Yes, but it would never be as good as it is on Xbox one because of the backwards compatibility games.

[tulholdren]

Don't like ea games and I don't want there service. So not having it on PlayStation is OK with me. For the people that want it maybe Sony will change. For the most part I see only people that like xbot really saying anything on it in this piece.

[jznrpg]

No Thx

[xPaYDaYx]

the only people that are actually complaining about EA Access are the ones that don't have it and actually want it. I for one have a pS4 and hardly play it. I do most of my gaming on my PC and don't have EA Access on there. That said I think having the option to subscribe to EA Access is amazing and they should definitely put it on PS4. You can never have too many options and tbh EA Access offers quite a bit. You can literally sub for one month and play dozens of games for that small fee, then just unsub once you feel like you won't get your moneys worth anymore.

[Kizwiz6]

I'm genuinely surprised there's so much negativity on here regarding this service (unless it's just bitter Sony fanboys). Honestly, this was one of the main reasons I picked the Xbox One over PS4. I could play the sports games with my friends and easily complete these games within a year's frame (so no need to 'own' it for longer) for such a short amount of cash? Nevermind the fact they constantly add more games and do trials for new games. This is honestly a bargain. Should be a welcoming feature for Playstation too.

[Petebloodyonion]

Why not?
Choice is always a good option for the consumer. Perhaps to some EA's library isn't interesting but it might for others.
For Budget ppl Ea acces has tremendous value with some AAA titles, B titles and some indies lookalike.

[Takwin]

No matter how bad it is, it is choice and Sony should allow me that choice. I don't want it, but I personally know people who do. I have the Dragon Age, KOTOR, and Mass Effect games, and those are the only EA games I play. If you play the shooters and sports, however, it is a good deal.

[SonyWarrior]

its a quality control issue sony doesnt want the PSN to be filled to the brim with garbage like steam is these days

[kdmitchell_toh]

That's an opinion, so you're entitled to it. This was already asked before and Sony denied this. They stated this was due to Sony *assuming* that their fans won't want to pay an additional $5 a month for an EA-specific program. Now, there are games on there that are worth it, in my opinion. On top of this, this service is helpful for game reviewers as they get access to a title, sometimes a month ahead of time. Not a demo, but a full game with 10 hours of gameplay. For games like Titanfall 2, Need for Speed, Battlefront and others that aren't RPG's, that's more than enough time to form an opinion for a game.

Sadly, yet expected, the comments here are from Sony fanboys who don't get the idea of added bonus or value. No one is forcing you to have it. Sony could have simply said, sure we can use this but it's not forced. No different than how it is on PC and Xbox now, you aren't forced to use it. Plus I'd much rather pay 5 dollars to check out a game and see if it's worth it vs $40-60 and finding out that it's trash and being stuck with it.

An option is just that, an option.

[Jon_Targaryen]

One of the reasons it will never happen.... Sony wouldn't all those BC games to surface on their system. It will make the fans ask why cant the rest be ported as well. Down vote me if you want, but you guys know I am right.

#fortheplayers

[windblowsagain]

No thanks.

Truth be told, I was PS4 was a free online service like PS3 and was a choice for premium. I don't care about indies. never did, never will.

[alfcrippinjr]

OH no not EA on my ps4 if that happens its going to crash 24hr a day

[Doopy]

Ea access is a great deal. Plants vs zombies 1 and 2, all the major sports games, mass effect series,ect for 5 dollars a month. More than worth it.

[joeorc]

And to be honest, just look at the history of EA and Sony and Microsoft...
EA: is mainly PC : Windows & Xbox as a priority over PlayStation just like bioware, and Bethesda.

So have EA service , but preferred customer support 1st would be for PC & Xbox over PlayStation..that's just the honest D@mn truth.

No wonder Sony would be i n no real hurry.

[XXanderXX]

Why , it offers no value according to some Executives . Best to just forget about it I were them , someone has Spoken on their behalf .