I think this is an awesome offer, i'll play $30 a year to be able to have a Madden or FIFA game available for whenever i feel like playing one or whenever my mates come over, BF4 is good and Peggle 2 is great.

Also having access to games i'm definitely not going to buy but would like to play like MMA and Hardline would be cool in the future.

I, for one, do not want a future where every big publisher has its own subscription system which I will need to subscribe to to 'rent' my video games.

Well played Sony.
Giving people options is always a horrible idea.
You tell them what they want!

Playstation Plus works great because it is for all games and all Sony devices. If each publisher had their own thing you would end up paying 50 bucks a month to get them all! I am all against publisher specific programs.

I'd say it's less of a threat to PS Plus than it is to Playstation NOW and, since a bunch of EA content has been significantly reduced in price in the EU PSN Summer Sale, it doesn't seem like EA themselves are that bent out of shape over it (although their content isn't further reduced for PS Plus subscribers, unlike other companies involved in the promotion)

Thank you Sony for taking a stand, even if it was purely out of self interest. If we let EA do this, then other companies will do it as well. Next thing you know you'll have to be a member of every videogame company's service if you want to play online. I'm aware that that's not how the service works right now, but it's the direction they're going. It'll start with exclusive in-game items for "premium" members, then maps, then gamemodes, and then eventually multiplayer in general. Have we all forgotten about EA and Ubisoft's extra logins from the previous generation?

I love how they talk about the rise in PS+ subscribers as if it exists in a vacuum. Dude, you switched from a free service to putting your multiplayer behind a paywall. That might have something to do with it. Fucking PR, man.

Of course, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that the system has some conditions on the part of Sony that they didn't want to take part of. The EA fee theory mentioned before sounds about right.

However, at face value, it does look like they don't like the competition and want to avoid consumers confusion. I think it would be the first time a service requires a subscription fee on top of the plus fee (subscription applications like Netflix does not require plus)

@fustacluck: Exactly my thoughts, I am not sure why everyone is comparing it to PS+. Deal works great for me considering I hadn't bought BF4 yet, and only my friends are interested in the Sports games, so I wouldn't buy them otherwise. Also Peggle.

@masterfaculty: yes but the putting online to a paywall was a financial thing. It's not really a good comparison.

Who would want early access to EA games anyways? Their games barely work when they get released.

Maybe because PS Plus is a lot better than the MS Gold program? MS give out old Fable and old Halo games I played half a decade ago while Sony gives out games that are fairly fresh, many less than a year old and some almost new.

I am usually the one defending EA while everyone else says they are the devil so I am surprised at how many side with EA over SONY on this one. When did EA become lovable?

I dislike publisher specific programs. Imagine instead of Netflix or Spotify you had to subscribe to each TV network's thing or each music company's thing. If EA does this so will Activision and the others and we'll end up paying too much to be able to get them all.

I love what Netflix, Spotify, PS Plus and such programs do, but too many of them and they loose their purpose. Their purpose is a low cost way to experience a lot of things. If they become too specific they loose their value because you get less benifit and it costs more since you need more subscriptions.

Then two hours later you'll be locked out of the game and counting down the days until you can play any more of it.

Could not care less. It's a shit deal and it's Sony's console. You do know that some of the revenue from EA Access goes to the console makers right? Why would Sony say no to money? Maybe it's to snuff out a potential competitor(who they would be making money on). Or maybe it's because they don't want their store filled with shitty subscription based rebate/dlc/hat programs? Or maybe it's the fucking dandelion people who control all major electronics companies wanting to spice shit up? Who-Fucking-Knows

THE TULIPS DOES!!

@darkstalker: I'm not comparing the two services, it just rankles that they talk a bunch of yang about how "PS+ membership is up more than 200% since the launch of PS4, so clearly people love it." Well, no shit, guys, you now make everyone who has a PS4 pay if they wanna play multiplayer. I just bought a PS4 yesterday, BTW, not fancying, just not a fan of the corporate BS.

The market will offer what the market will bear. If there is a market that wants subscription models and service relationships, it will be offered. If there's a market that wants to buy discrete products in discrete transactions, it will be offered.

'Not wanting a future' where there's a subscription model is like not wanting a future where people can hire a long-term driving service. It doesn't say anything about people being capable of hiring discrete cabs for discrete transactions, or purchasing their own car. It will compete with them, and the nature of that competition is going to affect your consumer decisions.

I just bought this, and I'm very okay with it. I hope they add NFS Rivals to the Vault, NHL 15 whenever.

I think that is the one thing people need to focus on, rather then discuss whether or not it is the right decision for Sony to make that call when it comes to what they do with their company.

While many people enjoyed Battlefield, Mass Effect and Dead Space, I personally haven't enjoyed a game produced by EA since Mirrors Edge. That's not to say I hated Mass Effect 1 or 2, It's just that when I think EA for whatever reason, I think Mirrors Edge. Considering they only have a handful of titles available at launch, it puzzles me why people are becoming venomous over Sony saying no. It isn't like we are getting or are going to get a catalog of games that many of us have fond memories of, or associate EA with, Overblood and Road Rash anyone? If the games that we wanted from years past haven't already come out, I find it hard to believe we will see them in the near future, it just doesn't seem like the new CEO of EA has that direction in mind. Instead, he wants to ape every other company and trend and hope that it holds face.

Why? Why do you think this? Why do people think this? This is the definition of idle speculation. It doesn't even make business sense for EA to charge console holders in order for those console holders to allow EA to sell a product on their store. That's the opposite of how licensing works!

Well that happen , I didn't expect sony to say something like this.

So basically they're worried that it would take off some revenue from Sony's own subscription service?

It doesn't really matter to me if what they've said is spin or the truth. I think the EA thing is just a garbage offering and a grab at more money from people without offering much for it.

Sony had every chance of having the service as well, but chose to pass on it ...did you even read the article?

That sounds a lot like the hope we had that every major publisher wouldn't feel the need to create their own, specific digital download platform.

I dont really get this backlash over the EA subscription. Its a good deal for people who want those games. I dont want those games, but others do.

@blu3v3nom07: if current year sports games get added outside of the very end of their lifecycle I will be shocked

I don't think it's worth the price if it doesn't cover all the consoles, PS Plus already gets me a shitload of games with decent variety and I bought a couple years in advance thanks to black friday deals last year.

People can argue that they should have given the choice, but I think it's good that Sony has some quality control on these kinds of things. I don't want to see these consoles letting companies do whatever the hell the want under the guise of providing "more options". Ideally this should also mean they have to come up with something better if they want a service like that on the Playstation.

Granted, if Microsoft continues to let them do whatever then they could very well just move their attention to the Xbox, for better or worse. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

How so? From what I understand you get full access to the game 5 days early and your progress carries over?

@humanity:

Like other subscription systems, it is whether or not you get the value of it over time that they are banking on. Paying $30 a year to get early access to Dragon Age Inquisition (with a discount?) and only that probably not a good bargain.

To be clear I think there maybe something to a "subscription system" if implemented in a better way. If you like a company and want to support them beyond buying a game, which you always and eagerly do, then going with a "$X a year to CompanyCo, Inc" maybe something you want to do where you get rewards from CompanyCo, Inc when they release games. However I don't care for paying money to these publishers like EA or Activision where it just gets lost in the giant corporate structure. I would be far more interested in paying $10 a year to Visceral Games instead of $30 to EA.

Or another way to look at it: This is EA trying to keep themselves a relevant middleman instead of getting out of the way where I'd rather deal with Popcap, Visceral, etc.

Dragon Age Inquisition will retail for 60 dollars. $70 in Canada.

Such a pedantic patronizing statment (if they are being honest about it anyway).

Sony's got a good thing going on with PS+ and with an as-yet unproven additional publisher-specific subscription, I can easily see where Sony is coming from. Ultimately it's an example of a larger role Sony has in curating its service and making sure shit doesn't get associated with PlayStation come time when people want to buy the console or re-up their subscriptions.

That and in a way it's perfectly emblematic of Microsoft being desperate for "exclusives" of any kind and Sony being content with doing what it's doing really really well. I don't see any issues with Sony changing their minds if EA's program actually becomes a good value to customers in practice but right now there's not much to go on. Hey anyone remember EA Gun Club? Yeah...

On the whole I'd mostly have to agree with Sony here, though why not let the consumer market speak for itself? If it's not a good plan, then it will fizzle out like their other subscription plans. Polygon's Chris Plante has a good write up of why as well.

This is from the same company that is charging users $4.99 to play Final Fantasy XIII from the PS3 streaming on the PS4 using PS Now, and $29.99 for 90 days.... Go home Sony, you're drunk...

I'm sure the fact that partnering with EA for pretty much anything at this point is bad publicity. Not only that, there is so much ill will towards EA due to how garbage Origin is. "Hey, want another client running in the background? Want to pay extra for the convenience of not having to buy the physical version? Weeell, we got all that right here!"

The more a company distances themselves from EA and their shitty greedy business practices the better. EA hasn't released a good game in eons. They buy studios that make good games, cause they SOMEHOW have limitless amounts of money while at the same time being 2 minutes away from bankruptcy at all times... Anyhoo, I would much rather buy games from a dev and publisher that work together rather than a publisher that enslaves talent and leeches all the creative juices out of development teams and then fires the lot.

That said, bought FIFA 14 earlier today so I can get into shape for FIFA 15....... FUCK EA.

Sounds to me like EA should sue Sony over this ridiculous monopoly.

As a PS3 and PS4 owner, I'm disappointed in Sony and that's rare.

@extomar: I honestly don't care where this money goes as long as I get what I've been promised - early access to games and discounts on DLC. I was never one to say "well, I'm a huge fan of Bethesda so I'm ok with giving them money but not EA because thats a media giant now." If someone makes a good game that is great, but I still don't think I owe anyone anything. I don't care if the game I'm playing was made by 300 people or 3 people - if it's a good game then that is all I care about. At the end of the day they get my money, and I get their game, we're both even. How the developer negotiated their terms with the publisher is their own matter entirely.

/facepalm.

Gamers would be paying a subscription to EA instead of buying their games! Not because it would be necessary to play their games. Options, Sony! Options!

Big miss on their part. Hope they get this too.

More choice is not always the right way to go or the perfect answer to everything. In this case i completely agree with Sony that this ea access thing stinks and is a bad value. They dont deserve money for this service. Paying more cash to play the game early? these days that is a pre order bonus or a so called "open beta". And with EA's track record with online games its really arrogant to ask a permium price for people to enter your online server stress test. I feel like they should pay you for taking part in this.

* Warning: This opinion is formed by a gentleman that holds no great fondness for most ea games since BFME2 Expansion: rise of angmar. I have recently been playing plants vs zombies 2 while traveling so that might also somewhat colour my opinion.

I knew the old arrogant prick Sony would show up again sooner than later once the PS4 had some success.

Looking forward to giving this a shot on the X1. If the service winds up terrible, so be it. But it's worth a shot.

With gaming becoming increasingly digital publishers will have to find a way to maintain market share and revenue. One of the most enticing things about digital content is the ability to have subscriptions where content can be accessed at any time. Only a few publishers would be able to do something like this and EA is one of the biggest. if Sony denies EA this opportunity they are preventing the industry from evolving with how people want their content. Unless EA wasn't willing to give Sony a big enough cut of the revenue I don't see why they wouldn't let EA try this out. PS Plus doesn't offer all games at all times so it's not really comparable. PS Now, on the other hand, might be closer to what EA is offering.

Given I've so rarely seen a sale on any major DLC for the EA games I'm interested in, while seeing the games themselves happily get discounted on Steam, I definitely see this being the trojan horse to that kind of model. Cheaper (insofar as you are already subscribing) games up front, with stuff locked away perpetually at full price.

Obviously Sony cares about the consumer as far as they can squeeze proprietary stuff into things for them to buy. I don't take any of their claims of concern for consumers seriously. But I don't see EA's plan as particularly interesting now with such nebulous terms and limited selection nor later if it it gets more robust and a success. It will only usher in other major publishers doing the same, likely locking things behind that paywall to ensure subscriptions. Maybe every publisher will get their WoW money by way of millions of subscribers. Oh well.

I can't believe people are actually shitting on Sony for this. Baffling.

@humanity:

I shouldn't have used "big" or whatever negative term for EA or Activision. Using another example, I have no problem with paying extra money to Bethesda to get bonus or deals for Fallout 4. I feel much less enthusiastic about paying ZeniMax Media to get the same bonuses or deals for Fallout 4. It is true that this is all a business and ZeniMax Media does deserve to get paid for investments made to Bethesda but it feels weird doing this way.

Yet another way to look at it: If one is only interested in a small part of the EA library, is this a good deal? Lets say someone is only a fan of Madden, does EA Access make sense of them? Lets say someone else only cares about Bioware games and is specifically excited to get access to Mass Effect 4, does EA Access make sense to them? It seems like a waste and this is exactly what these companies who use subscriptions are counting on. The audience here has been shown again and again not the majority of consumers where they may buy one or two games a year.

As mentioned, I am not opposed to a subscription system but this feels like a poor way to do it where it might be more about EA's structure than the concept. There is so much of EA's library I could care less about that I find almost no use for this service. Maybe it was never meant for me but if it was structured a little differently I would consider going for it. Ultimately the core issue is that the "classic" market system of video game is breaking down where EA Access feels like EA's way of trying to preserve EA's position in the supply chain instead of changing with the times.

The big question this raises - what reason does Sony have to refuse EA? I think EA asked them for money, myself. If so, Sony's arguments are completely valid, as a purchasing decision they decided to avoid. I wonder how much Microsoft is subsidizing the service.

Good. First it's discounts on games, next it's subscribe and get exclusive X or early access to X or some other bullshit and then it's every publisher around doing it and before you know it we've got even more content locked away behind a paywall.

EA has never done anything good for the consumer they wont start with this.

@corvak: because they have a competing service. It makes good business sense. Though I do get the "why can't they let me buy it if I want" side.

Also paying for 2 hour early access is gross.

This seems like a good idea in my case, I was thinking about picking up a copy of FIFA and it's still $40ish and I usually get the itch to play Madden about 3 times a year so I try not to buy it if I can help myself. So it seems the value is there.

Did you have to do anything for it to convert your copy of Madden to digital? I guess it would be nice for me to not have to put in my BF4 disk.

Do you think the system will be smart enough if, let's say, I let my EA Access account laps to let me still play BF4 when I put the disk in? Or still play Peggle 2 which I bought when it came out? Or will I get some weird licensing error telling me I can't play because my EA account expired?

To me, this seems a truly fascinating development, not certain on what side of things I fall yet (I'm PC master race for the record) but before finishing all the responses I'll say I'm very surprised at so much outrage towards Sony repressing competition as opposed to second party EA encouraging two subscriptions (assuming getting EAs without Sony's wouldn't be possible, right? Most of these thinks'ings apply either way) Sony's never claimed to be running some corporate utopia where they'll encourage all companies to compete for dollars on an equal footing, only that they'll provide the best service to their customers. Personally I can see how they would include discouraging the interface of their products turning into the clusterfuck of Steams and Steam wannabe's my desktop has turned into under such a remit, but judging by this thread the outrage might compel them to backtrack, it will be interesting to see.