Sony: EA Access Doesn't "Represent Good Value To The PlayStation Gamer"

[BMaker11]

Mr Puggsly said:

BMaker11 said:

Uhhh....PS+ already gives discounts on games and DLC, full game trials, and free games per month. And it's pretty across the board (meaning, EA games included). Why would you want a publisher specific subscription? What if it blows up? Then there's gonna be an "Activision Access" and "Ubisoft Access" and "Capcom Access". Then there won't be a "point" to PS+...which already does the things that EA Access is going to do.

No, there will still be a purpose for PS+. They can still charge people for online play.

God forbid other publishers make subscription services like EA Access. That might lead to people getting games they actually want to play.

Guess you didn't read the following where I said PS+ only being there to play online = not good value to PS gamers.

And I guess Grid 2, Borderlands 2, Bioshock Infinite, DmC, Metro Last Light, Payday 2, Tomb Raider, Remember Me, Arkham City, PES 2014, NBA2K14 (and that's just off the top of my head, PS3 only) are games people, presumably, don't want to play? And the publishers didn't get any money from these games being on IGC, that people didn't want to play? Not like they don't also have DLC which goes directly into their pockets, as well.

I don't see what you're getting at. But if you think opening the flood gates like that is a good thing, I guess that's just a difference of opinion. The trial, discounts, and free games will be ripped from PS+/GwG and put on a publisher by publisher subscription service. So you'll be paying $30 if you want EA stuff, $30 if you want Activision stuff, etc. instead of having some uniformity. But I guess spending more and more is a good thing =/