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

[bananaking21]

NiKKoM said:

BMaker11 said:

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 =/

Maybe PS+ is really bad for publishers.. ever thought about that? Not generating any income for the publishers.. could be the reason why EA did it..

or it was actually generating a lot of money and EA wanted a slice of the pie? 

the concept is simple. Sony offers some money for a game. an example would be 5 million to rockstar for RDR. by that point RDR was already profitable and sales werent all that much. so, they take the 5 million, which is free money, they also get the chance to sell more DLC since a lot of people are exposed to the game, and its free marketing. in the grand scheme of things sony only pays 5 million form the hunders they make from PS+. 

Rockstar gets free money, plus their game is marketed, and they are certainly going to sell more DLC.

Sony gets the big game, pays a small amount from the total they get PS+. and can manage to get much more games on it too. and they get the 50$ a year

the consumer gets the games, many of them. and pay 50$ a year for them all.