Back in 2014 when EA Access was announced, Sony said that it didn’t think the service represented value for money. An annual subscription like PlayStation Plus, the optional membership includes admission to a vault of games which can be downloaded and played as part of a subscription, and also unlocks early access to new releases and various discounts and promotions.
At the time, we argued that the platform holder may be worried about other publishers following suit: one or two additional console subscriptions are fine, but no one wants a device overrun with them. That hasn’t really panned out, and EA Access – with over 50 games available instantly on the Xbox One at the time of writing – certainly can’t be described as a bad deal for its annual $29.99 fee.
This author recently bought FIFA 17 in order to celebrate the start of the Premier League season, and while it was discounted on the PlayStation Store, it cost almost as much as a year’s worth of EA Access – where it’s currently available as part of the subscription. Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2 are also part of the roster – and they’re still relatively new.
Perhaps the weirdest part about all of this is that Star Wars Battlefront 2 and FIFA 18 are both being marketed heavily with PlayStation platform association – but they’ll be playable much earlier elsewhere through EA Access. It’s almost like Sony is spiting itself at this point – alright, it had reservations about the subscription early on, but they’ve mostly been put to bed now.
So is it time for a change? The lack of backward compatibility on the PS4 would reduce the sheer number of software that could be offered as part of a hypothetical EA Access vault on on Sony’s system, but with the discounts and early access, we still reckon it’d be more than worth the price of admission. So, should the Japanese giant change its mind?
Should Sony allow EA Access on PS4? (163 votes)
- Yes, the service is clearly good value for money
- Meh, I don't really care either way
- No, it could set a dangerous precedent for PS4
Please login to vote in this poll.
Comments 37
For the Players Sony.
@BLP_Software Thanks for adding to the discussion with a well thought out response.
I honestly think if Sony allowed it would open the Floodgates for others to do the same (we're seeing that happen with streaming TV services) Being on MS its kinda niche and im assuming it doesnt have that large of a user base, but open that to millions of other people, and the vultures will be circling all looking to grab a piece
@gmxs
I mean the xbox has sold more than a million units, and the service is also on PC. EA Acess being a thing hasn't created any other comparable services on xbox, and even if they did come you don't have to use it.
Yeah this is a path that we should be very careful about. Once Ea get a foothold on all consoles, whats stopping others (like Activision etc) doing the same. And then restricting content to those that have the service. I fear a future where you may need four or five subs; on top of a ps plus/ xbox live sub; and it all starts to get out of hand .
We are already seeing this in the TV space, with Disney breaking off from Netflix with plans to launch their own streaming service. Then sky's ridiculous sports packages. If you wanted them all you stand to spend a small fortune.
No I have very real concerns about this. But then I'm paranoid about change and thought smart phones would never take off, so what do I know 😂
@get2sammyb No reason for them not tod it beyond their own interests as it clearly is good value given the sale price of a game from EA on PS4 is the proce of a subscription to Access with more games.
Their entire thing is being "For the Players" so why not allow consumer choice?
There. Is that better?
If you are going to add EA early access, then why not XBOX game pass?
Would it be beneficial to the gamer? Yes.
However, Sony have very little to gain from this. It not realistic. MS do it, because they need to win back the gamer. Same reason they've changed their tune on cross platform online play.
Once Sony allow EA access to put up a subscription based service on a platform with 60million+, you bet your bottom dollar/pound/euro the likes of Bethesda & Square Enix will follow suit!!
That would be great wouldn't it?! They would all be pushing their own services. Sign up to Square Enix Early access to play Final Fantasy XXVII 3 months early & with the actual ending to the game.
Don't open Pandoras Box. It can't possibly end well.
If people really wanted to play EA's games that much just buy them in the sale. I got BF4 last year with all the expansions for just 4 quid so it can be done and I didn't need another bloody subscription to do so.
Plus like the article says there's bc games so the service is much worse for it. Of course EA could put those games on PS Now but won't.
@get2sammyb Maybe the reason that other publishers haven't followed suit is because they might feel that if PS4 (with the largest install base) then it probably isn't worth the effort.
@Fight_Teza_Fight @Rob_230 @gmxs Im with you guys on this.
Im already at saturation point with monthly bits of money coming out of my account. Honestly I look at my bank account one day and the next a load of direct debits have come out and Ive started to lose track of what they are for.
So keep it away EA. If I want the game I will buy it, if not whatevers on the igc will do until something else comes out I want.
The price is nice, but XBO list doesn't look like something way beyond IGC's weightier offerings, so one might as well wait until all these maddens and battlefields are old enough to hit Sony's own service. EA's limited presence on Vita (and I somehow doubt they would expand EA Access to PSP and PS1 titles) doesn't help either.
I have enough subscriptions coming out every month and as others have said this could lead to most developers doing the same. Though this particular one doesn't affect me too much as very few (if any) EA games interest me
I have access to EA Access via Xbox but it doesn't seem worth it. I have all the EA games I want, I will buy any EA game I want in the future at a 'price' I deem adequate and couldn't care less about 'early access'. Looking ahead, I can only think of 2 'definite' purchases - SWBF2 and Anthem - no doubt I will be interested in other SW projects but over the course of 'most' years, EA access would cost me more than the cost of the games I want.
Nope, I rather have ea game discounted heavily on psn (like titanfall at $20) rather than ea access. And of course if ea is allowed then ubisoft, activision, squareenix, and others will follow. I don't want console become subscription machine.
I've bought exactly two EA games this generation, the awful awful awful Dragon Age and BF4 for a few pounds.
So no, I don't think I'll bother with this.
Reboot Dead Space and don't drive it into the ground again, then we'll be on to something. And make a good SSX game while you're at it.
I voted no, but after I thought about it I've changed my mind. I don't know a whole lot about ea access but as long as a service like this is only for access to games and not charging for additional services, ie. online play, then im fine with it. Would kinda be cool if every AAA company had something like this and u could choose the ones that suit your favorite games the best. But again like I said I don't much about ea access so I could be totally wrong in my thinking. 🤔
$30 a year for access to that many games is a no brainer if you like EA's line-up.
they should lower PSNow to £4.99 a month or make it a yearly thing weather they add EAAccess or not
@kyleforrester87 same here only 2 EA games and the same. Oh and Mirrors Edge 2 which i still have to start backlog. 😀 😁
@Flaming_Kaiser Snap, I forgot I had mirrors edge too, got it in the sale for £8 a while back. I didn't finish it, but it wasn't bad!
Subscription based gaming is bad and i think it ruins the whole purpose of collecting and owning games.
I paid for a month to try the mass effect trial, if you love old sports games go for it.
Sony is yet again blocking something that should be available on the platform.
I don't want it. Its like streaming services - there's Netflix, and Hulu, and VRV, and HBO Go, and Amazon Prime, and like 18 other things, and its stupid. The LAST thing we need is for the big boys to decide "We need a cut of PSN/Xbox Live/Whatever Nintendo calls their stuff". Its absolutely a gross/dangerous precedent to set.
And that's to say nothing about EA's shabby library of content anyway Its just an obviously bad business practice for the consumer; no surprise that EA "innovated" it. They always just look at their players as a resource to be exploited (see also, the damn Ultimate Team bullsh**. Its why their games sell less these days, but they still make investors happy - they have enough whales to bleed money from that they can still post profits. They're the masters of making mediocre games and creating gross, gross business practices)
Just came to read the comments.
Oh, there's a vote! Hmm I'll vote, this one's easy!
Jaw dropped at the results...
This time I'll gladly join the minority. I'm in no need for more subs. Exactly why I won't ever sub for PS Now. I can't understand why people find this acceptable.
Sony messed up with PS3's architecture and screwed us out of Backward Compatibility and now they offer us a way to play PS3 games on PS4 and even make us pay for it? Yeah, it doesn't bode well with me. EA can shove Access.... nvm.
Those voting negatively seem to be assuming that people would 'have' to subscribe to it if it was on PS! you can carry on as normal and let those who want it take advantage of it.
Having said that I bet EA are making a lot of money with so many people buying their titles individually on PS4, so it's not really a problem for them
I have a very conflicting opinion about this
I think it's good to provide to something for the people who want it, Personally I don't like EA's Games that much
on the other hand,I think if this gets too out of hand, more publishers are going in on this service (2K,Activison,Square) making out exclusive things out of the service
I already have a lot of non Gaming subscription fees to pay so publishers making these kinds of things are really gonna make the most out of it.
I haven't bought an EA game since BF4 at the launch of PS4, so I don't care either way.
But I agree with what some others have said... value or not, it's potentially a slippery slope. It could easily end up like the TV sports subscriptions, where you need to have multiple subs, and I can easily imagine some of the larger publishers making certain features available only to those who do subscribe... especially if the push towards having everything online continues.
They should charge a bit more for PS+ and add EA Access to the service. Oh wait, there's already a price increase for PS+ incoming.
Sony should be including Psnow in the ps plus subscription considering the price hike and nothing substantial to back it up. EA access is pretty good but if it meant everyone else was going to jump on the subscription ship then I'd say no.
There comes a point where people just can''t afford to keep up. I'm referring to the danger of us ending up with having to have a bunch of subscriptions rather than just buying a game and having a PS+ sub.
There's only so much we can afford to spend on games and if these subscriptions increase it will mean a loss to everyone. How much spare cash do those numpties think we have?
I can see a potential situation where many gamers just narrowly focus on one, or at a push, two subs to cover their favourite games -
I'm happy with the PS+ sub and would sacrifice other games if it meant having to pay out more than just the cost of the game.
Having us all come round to the idea of paying out extra for DLC and "Expansions" EA and their ilk now want us to buy into subscriptions!?
They can shove that idea right up their jacksie.
Simply put, it would help boost the PS+ subscriber base, something Sony could always use. It won't corrupt the system like some sort of parasite lol, it's just an option.
Sony doesn't allow it is because they want gamers to buy PSNow and PSVue subscriptions. I bring up PSVue because they hiked up the price and denied Hulu the chance to update their app for live-tv streaming on PS4.
Sony likes to keep their customers under thumb. We'll bring this up again when PS+ is $70 a year
I really enjoy EA's games. I have especially liked FIFA this past year and I'm planning on picking it up again when 18 is released.
I've been wanting to pickup both Battlefront and Titanfall too.
....but I voted "no" despite the subscription having some decent value at the current moment. I guess I'm fearing the unknown or the possibility of a company who basically created the "every year iteration" of games corrupting their own subscription. It starts out great but eventually you need their subscription to fully enjoy games that you purchased. Like, you buy the new Star Wars game but in order to play these 4 maps you need our EA Access Subscription; or you can play these 3 modes with Playstation Plus, but you need EA Access to play this new mode; or Star Wars comes out in November for EA Access members to buy but it won't come out to everyone else until April. Now I just used Star Wars as an example and none of the stuff I said has been announced but that's what I fear I guess.
EA Access should be allowed on Playstation, it adds value to the system for consumers to have the choice to use the service or not. If in some way EA abuse the system once they get the go ahead, all it requires is for a chunk of people to boycott the service and the company to set things right. Of course, that requires willpower which is something I see the majority of people lacking these days, but given all the other horrible practices that have invaded gaming over the past decade I doubt EA can do much to further harm the consumer's experience.
It looks to me like Sony are more worried about the impact allowing the service will have on its profits than any thoughts of protecting its user base. On both PC and Xbox there seems to be no indication of these services getting out of hand, plus we are always being told the future will more likely be streaming of games from a service rather than what we have now.
I am somewhat curious though how many people here were against Sony curating the store to keep what amounted to asset flip games off it, but think they should not allow EA Access?
for god sakes, more options, more for everybody, if you don`t want to subscribe to it, good for you, but there must be others that would like to have that service in my opinion it`s better to have "the option", but wow, i`m shocked. let me guess, you prefer ps now streaming service, right?
@Fight_Teza_Fight I don't think you understand what EA Access actually is bud. You pay £19.99 a year to have access to EA's backlog library of games. You can have trials of certain new games coming out and the opportunity to play a new game for ten hours before it comes out if you've preordered it.
The main reason you'd sign up is for the game library. Which at this point is just fantastic value.
It's got to be said, this vote is somewhat skewed by the fact that - judging by the comments - no-one seems to know or understand what EA Access is or why it's great value for money. Let me clear some things up:
1. The cost is £20($30) for an entire YEAR.
2. The main feature of the service is that it puts all of EA's older games in to one downloadable library that you can download to your console for no extra cost. You can download and delete as many times as you want.
3. For example, if you had an Xbox One and signed up to EA Access right now you could download: Battlefield 1, Titanfall 2, FIFA 17, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Star Wars: Battlefront, Mass Effect 1, 2 & 3 and a whole load of other games.
4. In addition to the game library, you have access (aha) to 10% off the cost of any EA game purchase that you make from the Xbox Live store. That includes preorders.
5. Some new games recieve a ten hour trial for Access members so that you can try the full version that latest game and see if you then want to buy it. And if you do, you get 10% off.
6. If you preorder an EA game, for a fair few of them you get to download and play that game three days before anyone else.
EA Access is pretty much the only reason I own an Xbox One at this point. It's a FANTASTIC deal. It's a great way to give you the incentive to play an older game that you may not have wanted to buy when it came out. For example, I didn't buy Battlefield: Hardline but I downloaded it from the EA Access library and I had a blast.
If Activision, Ubisoft or Square Enix want to do the same I would encourage them to do so. If they were £20 each for a year then it would cost just £80 a year for a never ending source of great gaming from the four biggest independant games publishers.
Unless there was something that you specifically wanted to buy at launch, you might never need to buy a new game again. It could revolutionise the games industry and make it far more accessible to all income levels.
To be honest, there is no reason why EA Access shouldn't be on the PS4. It just seems greedy from Sony that they don't want to allow it.
Like the man says, it's clearly great value. That's why I voted. I'm not interested in EA games though.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...