Xbox One will get EA Subscription program

No word yet on other platforms. Way to take sides here EA...

Update:

PlayStation owners won’t be getting the EA Access system, something Sony attributes to the lack of value the service offers.

Speaking to Game Informer, a spokesperson for Sony noted that the PlayStation Plus system already provided substantial quality given its price.

PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price.

As such, Sony didn’t believe that offering another service would be appealing for PlayStation owners, they said.

“We don’t think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer.”

Link

Not the worst idea of all time, the price is pretty fair if you ask me. Though, I'm not totally interested because most of EA's currently in-development IPs don't interest me. (Aside for a few of course)

EA might continue they partnership with Ubisoft so you will have a few of their biggest titles on the service.

I can't imagine this not being on the PS4 as well. Seems like it's really about targeting used game sales as the bigger titles likely won't hit the vault until well after release when the bargain hunters are looking to grab them cheap.

Companies need to start doing something to combat used games sales. Maybe others will follow suit.

Sony has responded, the OP has been updated

@firefox59: If they want to combat used game sales, then they could lower the starting price of games...or at the very least drop the prices on games faster.

"Will give you access to mostof the EA games"

Please specify.

It means no new games

it's an interesting twist with Sony. I don't really know why they would feel denying playstation users the choice of whether or not to subscribe is better for ps users than not having a choice at all. I'm wondering if this has more to do with how a service like this affects Sony's ability to collect licensing fees on EA games...which are what, $7-10 per game?

Yeah, it's called making better games that are worth the new game price they're asking. Anything else wont work. You can't deny that there's a ton of shitty games out there trying to screw customers over with a $60 price tag.

Wait, is that a joke or does it really mean you get old EA games you can buy for $3 at a flea market but not the new ones that are coming out?

Dunno about you guys, but I'm chomping at the bit to pay a monthly subscription to play stellar games like Madden 2001 and Fifa 1998.

Its all about cost and income and also probably that EA´s service would compete with Sony´s own services or planned services so im not that surprised that Sony said no.

@Black_Knight_00:

It wasn't and fyi better deal than SONY lol $5 for 4 hrs was it?

Just read comments, but basically for $30 a year you get access to their complete library of games no strings attached. As for new games, you'll have access to betas or alphas and test/ purchase the game 5 days before release. SONY declined simply because EA access eats into SONY's licensing and distribution fees. SONY notorious for nickle n dimming developers and being paranoid control freaks with regards to digital transactions. SONY wants to monopolize the PSN Store. Microsoft is a billion dollar company and already owns 50% of the US online market share. Accepting EA access just strengthens their current position. Plus, I bet you that the terms were different for both SONY and Microsoft.

No, that's not a joke, it's only old games

Wow. Pretty much every EA game from 2011 and before is $1 to $5 and 2012-2013 are like $10. Why rent them when you can buy the whole lot for less than twice the amount of a yearly subscription?

Exactly, that's why Sony refused it. Also you get 10% off from new games and 5 day early access. But it only pays off if you plan to buy more than 5 new games from EA in a year

Oh look, this argument again. Players are trading in games no matter how much they enjoy them, it's been proven. It's also been proven that many gamers will buy used just to save 5 bucks. ($55 vs. $60) This at times can effectively cut new game sales in half. It has nothing to do with the quality of games. Many gamers also sell a game back early for the money planning to buy it again, but then they never do. This increases the amount of used games for players that never bought new to purchase.

My guess is they want to capitalize on the Steam sales factor: basically the idea that people will pay just to have a huge choice of games, but never actually download and play them. I mean, come on: if a guy hasn't picked up a $2 copy of Army of Two by now, it's because he doesn't care to play it.

Oh and by the way, 90% of those games will be single player only, since exception made for Battlefield, EA shuts down servers 3 years from release.

Battlefield 4, Peggle 2 and both sports games both came out in the last year (with more games to come they claim). $2.50 a month isn't a bad deal. Sony didn't do this for a potential multitude of reasons. One being they don't want it competing with PS Now, which has been rumored to be $5 for a short amount of rental time let alone a month. Sony should give the consumer the option. This might actually eliminate the possibility of EA games being available for the PS+ releases.

Also, "Playstation Plus members are up 200% since the launch of the PS4." Lmao, yeah cause you need it to play games online now. That means nothing and Sony knows that. To use it as justification for this decision is bull. Sony just didn't want to do it.

Oh look, this argument again. Pretending GS trade-ins are 100% of all used game sales. Sorry to break this news to you, but poor game sales are not due to the used market. It's due to poor value and over-pricing.

Unless you're a business rep or have a vested interest in the financial aspect of gaming I can't understand why consumers take up for heartless corporations that don't give a single damn about you--all they care about is your cash. Why defend them?

Seems like a pretty good deal. Trying games out early, getting discounts on various games and dlc, and having access to play a variety of games is pretty enticing for $30 a year. I think I'll be subscribing to this service myself.

Who brought up Gamestop? You did. You're ignorant for thinking it's only Gamestop. There are a bunch of companies dealing in used games. THAT is the problem. It's not just one. Games sales are negatively affected by used games. That is a fact. Also over-priced games? Games are cheaper now relative to the dollar than they've ever been. Nice try. Just another gamer who doesn't know what's going on.

You're the one who is ignorant if you believe most used game sales are only $5 cheaper than new games, and if you believe used game sales are the reason new games sell so much less.

I see you still haven't answered why you defend new game prices and the companies who sell them. I guess there's no point in asking you how many new games per year you buy.

Maybe try reading my whole post next time? Games are cheaper now than they have ever been. Why the hell would companies lower the price of new games? Especially when pre-orders are higher than ever. It doesn't make sense. You think I would preach buying new games and then not do it? Lol, why. I've bought one used game in my entire life and that's because it was really old and incredibly expensive new. Besides, the number of games one purchases has nothing to do with buying new or used.

Has there been any word yet on when this will be released to the public? I know it's in a beta now, but I figure it must release at least 5 days before the next Madden (which comes out August 26th).

PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4

Is this surprising considering it was basically forced on anyone who wants to do anything online with the PS4?