VanceIX said:
Oh really? And pray tell me, what's wrong with an OPTIONAL service that gives gamers discounts and access to a vast amount of games? If you don't like it, fine. But what you're saying is that NO other gamer should be able to decide if it is a good value for themselves, just because you don't feel it is. What right do you have to decide for other gamers what's a good value and what's not? Can you answer that? No, because you don't represent every gamer, not even close. This is like someone wanting Netflix removed from game consoles just because they don't use it, and they feel it might compete with Sony's video store. Both Netflix and EA Access are completely optional services. Heck, EA access is cheaper than Netflix and doesn't even compete directly with any of Sony's services, the way Netflix does. Your argument is flawed to the core, simply because you assume that everyone perceives value the same as you do, which they don't. That's why we have options in the real world. |
I don't see value in EA access because I don't play their games... but I'm pretty darned certain that a lot of people will... I even said in a different thread that it would be good to have a "cable plan" for PS4 where you can choose what publishers you want to have access.
EDIT: Vancell look at the thread I created for this http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=187837&page=1# and give your opinion.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







