EA Expands Its Subscription Service to PlayStation 4

[btarunr]

Today, Electronic Arts Inc. announced that it is bringing EA Access to the PlayStation 4 (PS4 ) system. Starting this July, players can sign-up for a monthly subscription (MSRP $4.99), or an annual subscription (MSRP $29.99) through PlayStation Store. With the addition of the PlayStation 4 console to the already existing membership services on Xbox One and PC via Origin , EA now offers its subscription services on more platforms than any other publisher.

As we continue to invest in digital and subscription services, bringing great games to even more players across more platforms is an exciting opportunity for everyone," said Matt Bilbey, Executive VP of Strategic Growth. "Our goal is to give players more choice to try and play our games wherever and however they choose, and we're happy to bring EA Access to PlayStation 4."



Membership in EA Access lets players experience Play First Trials, where they can play up to 10 hours of most new EA games. Subscribers also enjoy a 10% discount on full game purchases, expansions, in-game items and more. Additionally, players can jump into a growing library of EA games, including the best of EA with franchises like Battlefield , EA SPORTS FIFA, Star Wars Battlefront and more.

To stay up-to-date on EA Access news and sign up for more information, visit this page.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Vayra86]

Sweet, now you can play console games online with two subs.

 

[Manu_PT]

You talk like this service doesn´t exist on PC aswell lol no one forces you to subscribe to it. And let me assure you that if Steam had a good service like PS Plus I would subscribe immediatly. Playing every Early Access/Beta game for free, playing every relevant Indie for free, getting 2 AAA games per month for a total of 24 per year on my library, etc etc.

These services offer an incredible way of saving money. Not only they allow us to try every game before buying it so we don´t regret later, but also allows to play some single player 6/7 hour games that after you complete them you won´t touch them anymore.

 

[Vayra86]

You make very good points there. But there is also a trend here and that is a bad one: everything is going to go sub based and before you know it, your entire monthly wage is straight up transferred to all those 'easy ways to save money'.

You're not saving money. You're throwing it away on items you only rent and never own (short vs long term gain). When you stop paying, that entertainment ends abruptly. Also, everything you sub leaves you less money to save, savings that you could reinvest into something that makes money, for example. Saving money is an illusion here, that only applies if you make the scope very small - a straight comparison like yours of 'game A' versus 'sub EA'.

This is bigger than just an EA service, subs are any company's wet dream because its recurring income. That was the motivation behind my comment. Even going online with that console is already sub based. You know what's next? Those season passes and DLC, you'll only be able to access those with yet another sub, or a more expensive 'premium' EA access. And we see an increasing amount of content move from vanilla release to season pass lately. In all of this, you're not really capable of making a stand as a consumer, best you can do is unsub, and what message do you send then - its unclear.

Another aspect is the developer and subsequently the quality and scope of games. You mention 6-7 hour games, well those AAA high polish linear experiences are no longer viable when a majority of customers thinks like you did up there. This also ties into the recent Epic Game Store movement, that 4A dev's response to the shitstorm and the truth that lies at the core of that. Funding is secured because there is a certainty of a target market. When there are 'easy and cheap' ways to circumvent a sale price, that can turn bad fast.

Not only they allow us to try every game before buying it so we don´t regret later

Also, this - Steam 2 hour refund (something that's being copied, now by EGS for example) does the job just fine at that, but even more so: is it really a perk to pay for demo time?

 

[Manu_PT]

Yes is true that we never really "own" those games. And that´s basically the only drawback I can see here. I have no problems in renting, like we did with VHS movies on the last decade. As long as those services don´t get more and more costly I´m ok with them. Also I don´t subscribe every month. Sometimes I do sub to EA Access when I feel that I want to try certain new games. We know the hot months for game releases are usually September, October and November. I´m always subbed during this time because I find it worth it. If I really love some game, I buy it and I know Im buying a product that I like a lot.

I agree with the "premium" services argument tho, EA has 2 services already and that makes no sense.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Sweet, now you can play console games online with two subs.

So now they're offering game rentals on PS4 now... Yay... And with another service running on top of an existing service!

 

[Vayra86]

So now they're offering game rentals on PS4 now... Yay... And with another service running on top of an existing service!

Inserviception

 

[Bones]

I figured sooner or later console gaming would get nudged in this direction making you both, dependent on and have to pay them just to use your console.
Guess this means PS4 without the online service is the limit for me.

If the upcoming PS5 does have games with no requirement to be online to play and you could get a full version on disk that's good but I don't see that happening with all this going on.

 

[bug]

Sweet, now you can play console games online with two subs.

Ah, this isn't about subscribing once and running on whatever system? I don't care about it then.

 

[dozenfury]

I'm sure there will be gripes (there are about anything nowadays) but to me this is pretty awesome. I'm a pretty hardcore old school gamer, and have a gaming PC along with all of the current consoles. EA Access is a great bargain, $30 for a year for a library of games and all new releases is great, half the cost of 1 new game.

The only downside is that I don't find myself playing console much lately. Exclusives were the main reason I play console when I do, since there are some gems that simply aren't available on PC. PC gaming has been on a growth spurt lately though, and so fewer and fewer games are releasing only on Xbox or PS4. Madden is one example, back on PC after being console only for about 15 years. There are the games like The Last of Us, Horizon: Zero Dawn, etc. that are console only, but Xbox has shifted away from console exclusives with Play Anywhere, and more and more big releases are going to PC. Thankfully Origin Access is available on PC too, but paying for a sub for both PC and PS4 platforms (and maybe Xbox too) is a bit much.

A good change would be if EA made this cross-platform, so customers just pay one "EA Access" sub which applies on all platforms. Having Origin Access on PC and having to also pay separately for an EA Access account on PS4 and/or Xbox seems clunky and something that could be improved.

 

[Manu_PT]

I'm sure there will be gripes (there are about anything nowadays) but to me this is pretty awesome. I'm a pretty hardcore old school gamer, and have a gaming PC along with all of the current consoles. EA Access is a great bargain, $30 for a year for a library of games and all new releases is great, half the cost of 1 new game.

The only downside is that I don't find myself playing console much lately. Exclusives were the main reason I play console when I do, since there are some gems that simply aren't available on PC. PC gaming has been on a growth spurt lately though, and so fewer and fewer games are releasing only on Xbox or PS4. Madden is one example, back on PC after being console only for about 15 years. There are the games like The Last of Us, Horizon: Zero Dawn, etc. that are console only, but Xbox has shifted away from console exclusives with Play Anywhere, and more and more big releases are going to PC. Thankfully Origin Access is available on PC too, but paying for a sub for both PC and PS4 platforms (and maybe Xbox too) is a bit much.

A good change would be if EA made this cross-platform, so customers just pay one "EA Access" sub which applies on all platforms. Having Origin Access on PC and having to also pay separately for an EA Access account on PS4 and/or Xbox seems clunky and something that could be improved.

I always prefer my PC but I still play a lot of games on console, mainly exclusives as you mentioned and some specific genres that I feel they work bettet on console. I mean bigger playerbase/faster matchmaking. Nba 2k, fifa, pes, mortal kombat, tekken, f1 2018 or street fighter. Atho they all exist for pc and deliver objectively superior performance (high refresh, textures, fps), most are empty as most ppp are on league or dota or pubg or fortnite.

Ocasionaly I play some 3rd parties like shadow of thr tomb raider or evil within on console because Im too lazy to sit on the chair and go to the couch instead. Another thing that bothers me is that I prefer dualshock controller and most games only have xbox scheme. How many times I messed up on a quick time event because the game asked me to press A and my brain stops like "whats that button on my controller"

 

[Franzen4Real]

You make very good points there. But there is also a trend here and that is a bad one: everything is going to go sub based and before you know it, your entire monthly wage is straight up transferred to all those 'easy ways to save money'.

You're not saving money. You're throwing it away on items you only rent and never own (short vs long term gain). When you stop paying, that entertainment ends abruptly. Also, everything you sub leaves you less money to save, savings that you could reinvest into something that makes money, for example. Saving money is an illusion here, that only applies if you make the scope very small - a straight comparison like yours of 'game A' versus 'sub EA'.

This is bigger than just an EA service, subs are any company's wet dream because its recurring income. That was the motivation behind my comment. Even going online with that console is already sub based. You know what's next? Those season passes and DLC, you'll only be able to access those with yet another sub, or a more expensive 'premium' EA access. And we see an increasing amount of content move from vanilla release to season pass lately. In all of this, you're not really capable of making a stand as a consumer, best you can do is unsub, and what message do you send then - its unclear.

Another aspect is the developer and subsequently the quality and scope of games. You mention 6-7 hour games, well those AAA high polish linear experiences are no longer viable when a majority of customers thinks like you did up there. This also ties into the recent Epic Game Store movement, that 4A dev's response to the shitstorm and the truth that lies at the core of that. Funding is secured because there is a certainty of a target market. When there are 'easy and cheap' ways to circumvent a sale price, that can turn bad fast.



Also, this - Steam 2 hour refund (something that's being copied, now by EGS for example) does the job just fine at that, but even more so: is it really a perk to pay for demo time?

For the most part, I am pretty resistant to the subscription model for software as well but Access on PC is one thing that I do sub to. For my use case I think it is a great value, but i certainly see the other side that you express as far as a rental over ownership. I'm early in my third decade of PC gaming, and I find that I just don't sink the time (or even have the extra in the first place) to put excessive hours into games (as in 100's+). I also find that once I get my fill of a game it is very rare that I revisit it later, especially games that have perpetual sequels every year or two. For the couple few games that I really like enough to own forever, I'll pick it up way down the road on a heavy discount. So for me, it works out nicely to pay a little bit but have access to 150+ games (many of which I would play but not buy at full price) plus all of the DLC. A good example is Anthem and BF5. Those would have been $120 to buy not counting the future dlc, but I definitely didn't play $60 worth of BF5, and who knows what the future of Anthem holds or if it will even exist in a couple years. I think there is definitely a large audience that this model can benefit, but it's understandably not for everyone.

 

[Vayra86]

For the most part, I am pretty resistant to the subscription model for software as well but Access on PC is one thing that I do sub to. For my use case I think it is a great value, but i certainly see the other side that you express as far as a rental over ownership. I'm early in my third decade of PC gaming, and I find that I just don't sink the time (or even have the extra in the first place) to put excessive hours into games (as in 100's+). I also find that once I get my fill of a game it is very rare that I revisit it later, especially games that have perpetual sequels every year or two. For the couple few games that I really like enough to own forever, I'll pick it up way down the road on a heavy discount. So for me, it works out nicely to pay a little bit but have access to 150+ games (many of which I would play but not buy at full price) plus all of the DLC. A good example is Anthem and BF5. Those would have been $120 to buy not counting the future dlc, but I definitely didn't play $60 worth of BF5, and who knows what the future of Anthem holds or if it will even exist in a couple years. I think there is definitely a large audience that this model can benefit, but it's understandably not for everyone.

Absolutely, I can see too that it would potentially 'save' money - heck if I wanted to I could sub briefly and get my money's worth no problem. Though that is the thing really, do you really save money, or is your habit with gaming just going to adjust to that new reality?

In my view, this is a deal with the devil. I already have Netflix and I see the perks of it, they're quite the same because your gaming is my series/TV watching really in terms of hours per day/week/year.

But there is a marked difference here. Netflix invests heavily in high quality content and this translates into really good, new, and extremely varied content offerings - Netflix's on-demand business is actually a major improvement for the end user beyond the on-demand itself.

With EA and gaming, I think its safe to say that is not the case. Their whole strategy is aimed towards 'do less earn more'. Their greatest revenue and profit growth comes from in-game purchases (can you feel the link to subs like Access already and how they will extract money soon?) and add-on content. Those vanilla games, and this is still a news flash for some people but the trend is really already a few years old, are getting lower on content and 'roadmaps' are now offered on release to show you what's coming soon - at additional cost. You could ask the question if the long term is going to be good for you / all of us, no matter how much you've "saved". So far, these business models have absolutely no positive side effects for the content itself, and I dare say, quite the opposite instead.

 

[Franzen4Real]

With EA and gaming, I think its safe to say that is not the case. Their whole strategy is aimed towards 'do less earn more'. Their greatest revenue and profit growth comes from in-game purchases (can you feel the link to subs like Access already and how they will extract money soon?) and add-on content. Those vanilla games, and this is still a news flash for some people but the trend is really already a few years old, are getting lower on content and 'roadmaps' are now offered on release to show you what's coming soon - at additional cost. You could ask the question if the long term is going to be good for you / all of us, no matter how much you've "saved". So far, these business models have absolutely no positive side effects for the content itself, and I dare say, quite the opposite instead.

Actually, this is kind of what drives me to the sub model. Looking through my games that have DLC/season passes available, I mostly only own the vanilla game because I refuse to play ball on developers removing content (or just not finishing the game) in order to resell it to me later for more money. As far as the sub business model driving this, I think that particular trend really came about once broadband consoles with large HDD's hit mass saturation back in the Xbox 360 days (well before the subscription models like Access or PlayPass came about) and was here to stay no matter the current business model. But with Access, you are getting all future content releases included with the sub price instead of having to pay extra for a season pass, or individual DLC like you do when purchasing the game outright. Also, games that you already owned prior to Access automatically upgrade free to the 'deluxe' version (or whatever they name it to include DLC) while you are subbed. Now in game purchases, loot crates, etc., I don't spend $$ on that no matter what, whether it was a purchased game or one I'm playing through Access.
But the craziest thing is, I sound like I'm actually trying to defend EA...lol. Sorry, I definitely don't mean to (I need to shower now, I feel filthy). They are truly rat bastards at their core. Again, I'm pretty resistant to software as a service a good 99% of the time. But somehow, they managed to offer something that I feel I'm getting pretty nice value for in my casual gaming days for less than the cost of 2 vanilla games over a year.