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

[jlmurph2]

BMaker11 said:

irstupid said:
To those saying it is bad for the industry is this works out.

Why?

Lets name some big Publishers, or has already been said Ubisoft, EA, Activision, ect.

Lets say there is 4 companies doing this. That's ONLY $120. The price of ONLY 2 games.

For that price I get the entire BACKLOG of all that companies games. Hell I'd be fine not owning a new game ever. Just pay my $120 a year and play whatever huge catalog of games is available for free.

Sounds like an awesome idea imo. I mean hell I pay like $120 a year for Netflix. This would basically be like Netflix for video games. Obviously not the new releases, but I can wait 6 months.

It's funny how in the 4 years since PS+'s inception, PS gamers have been saying "it pays for itself" with giving out IGC games and Xbox gamers have said "it's not worth it"....now you get a similar service by way of paying a subscription and getting tons of games, and you all love it, it's "worth it", it totally pays for itself because the games cover the price, and you like "renting" games now (you all used to hate "renting" games, as you'd rather own them...until the rules of XBone GwG and now EA Access have come out).

Sheesh

So does this mean you're against renting now? Cuz the roles sure do seem to have flipped in this thread. Wouldn't you PS+ guys be the first ones to understand why we like it.