Brings up good points...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...ideo-game-subscription-plan/?partner=yahootix
===================================================================================================
Soon, Xbox One gamers will be able to pay $5 a month for a
Netflix -like subscription to EA games. The EA Access program is coming exclusively to Xbox One because
Sony turned down the idea, stating that the company doesn’t think “asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer.”
My colleague Paul Tassi
argues that this “seems pretty disingenuous and petty from Sony” since the subscription is entirely optional.
While I think he’s correct that Sony may have turned down EA Access due in part to the PS Now game-streaming service and the success of PS Plus, I think he’s absolutely off the mark when he calls it a “dumb decision” by Sony.
Let’s look at what an EA-specific subscription plan could turn into for consumers and Sony alike.
First of all, this may not be the only publisher-specific subscription plan offered. Today it’s just EA Access and Sony’s own offerings. But what if in a few months Ubisoft offers a $5 subscription to Ubisoft Infinity for $3.99 a month and then Activision comes out with Activision SuperMegaJoy for $6 a month and then…well, you get the picture.
Fanboy Wars: The Newest eBook From Forbes
The Fight For The Future Of Video Games is a warts-and-all look at the clashes between the video game business and its passionate fans.
This starts to become confusing for consumers, and it becomes a huge task for Sony since each of these plans is funneled through Sony’s framework and ultimately Sony’s customer service.
Lots of gamers don’t think about the publisher of game X or game Y. Unlike Netflix, which offers movies and TV from myriad studios, EA Access is just EA. How many consumers will sign up thinking that it is, in fact, the Netflix of games, only to find out that
Call of Duty isn’t a part of the plan. The headache for Sony is obvious. They’ve dodged a bullet.
Microsoft is right in the cross-hairs.
If you read the
EA Access Terms of Service, you’ll notice that the subscription purchase is made directly through Microsoft; that an EA Origin account is required; and that all customer service related questions are directed to Microsoft, not EA. If Sony had embraced EA Access, Sony would have been responsible for all the same burdens.
Plenty of other problems could arise.
Like PS Plus, cancelling your EA Access account means loss of access to all content you may have purchased through the program. Unlike Netflix, only some titles are available for free. The rest—and this includes basically all new content—is simply discounted. This is just another potential confusion for customers and problem for Sony customer service.
And again, if other publishers start doing the same thing you just magnify the issue. Sony’s own services PS Plus and PS Now are handled by Sony directly and include games from numerous content creators. These are simpler solution for both customers and Sony, and I think that’s more relevant to the issue at hand than potential competition from EA.
(Note: I think PS Plus and PS Now could be better integrated for simplicity’s sake, and obviously we don’t know how well Now will work yet. Now also needs to figure out a better pricing scheme than what we’ve seen so far, so this isn’t an argument in favor of Now so much as it’s an argument against Sony getting embroiled in EA Access, etc.)
Maybe down the road a real “Netflix for games” will rise up and beat out all these plans. But EA Access is not that program, and Sony was right to keep their distance.
Update: As a reader notes, there could also be server-related issues. The entire technical backdrop is another potential source of problems for Sony (and MSFT) that were certainly a part of Sony’s decision.
every developer cant do this cause they all dont have the catalog to do it
to me
