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

[Mr Puggsly]

BMaker11 said:

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 =/

You might find this hard to believe, but there are people have little or no interest in the games you mentioned. EA Access can offer different games for a different audience.

You're concerned about EA Access being an additional subscription. But its just an option for people to get games from a publisher they enjoy.

PS+ is just a few games a month now and there is no guarantee subscribers will get the games they want. With EA Access, people are subscribing because they want access to library from EA.