By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 30 July 2014
Edit Thread
Mr Puggsly said:
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 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.

Lol, as if EA is only some niche game maker to appeal to this "different audience". They make sci-fi games (Mass Effect), racers (NFS), shooters (Battlefield), survival horror (Dead Space), and more of the like. I'm sure there's some overlap between what EA makes and the games I mentioned (also, remember, I said that was just off the top of my head, PS3 only, and actually only from Jan-June 2014, not the future, or games before Jan 2014).

And you are right, it is an option to get games from a publisher they enjoy. But you make it seem like EA is going to publish a list of games detailing a year's worth of what their catalogue is going to be. Chances are, it's gonna be as random as PS+ and GwG is, except it's going to be EA Games only. So there's no guarantee you'll get what you want there either. And people don't just like EA by default, so just because EA published it doesn't mean people will like it. You can just as easily get NBA Live 14.

And PS+ is 6 games a month. It's "just a few games a month now" makes it seem like they lowered the number....but they haven't? They just exchanged the 3rd PS3 title for a 2nd PS4 title because the PS community wanted more PS4 games (which is kinda ridiculous to ask for a new console).

It may be "just an option", but if it's not one or the other (online/GwG vs. EA Access), then at some point, you're paying an additional sub. And all I've been saying this whole time is that PS+ already offers all of that stuff combined in one package.

edit: but you know what? There's no point in arguing about how pragmatic the services are, what the value is, etc. I shouldn't be defending Sony's sentiment here. Sure, I get what they're saying and I agree with it (thinking long term, because I don't want a domino effect of publishers having these subs, so instead of getting free games for $50, I have to pay separate subs for separate publishers because Assassin's Creed isn't published by Activision, for example), but they shouldn't tell me what is a good value. Give the option and let the market decide.